Talk:Regnal name/Archive 1

Archive 1

Does anybody know why they choose these names?

Does anybody know why they choose these names? Where do the names come from, do they have any special meaning? Does the ordinal have to follow from a different name. Can folks just choose a new name, without having to be the second,third,etc? bdgrell 22:19, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that common popes name themselves after either their predecessor or a saint/apostle, i.e. John Paul II is named after John Paul I who is named after the respective saints. MessedRocker 22:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

No. John Paul I was named after Pope John XXIII and Paul VI. John XXIII was named after John the Apostle. Paul after St. Paul. Pius XII was named after Pius XI, whom he served as Secretary of State. Benedict XVI is supposedly named after Benedict XV. Pius X was named after Pius IX, etc. Some are named after saints, some after predecessors. FearÉIREANN 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is why you tend to see papal names in clusters, as the new pope will often take the name of the pope that had made him bishop or cardinal. Of the 11 popes between 1775 and 1958, seven were named Pius. All 14 popes from 1644 to 1774 were named either Alexander, Benedict, Clement, or Innocent. IIRC from "The Prince," Alexander VI took his name for Alexander the Great and Julius II for Julius Caesar. Innocent XIII took the name of his ancestor Innocent III. That said, I don't think we're going to see Sixtus VI anytime soon. Jimpoz 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who are interested in papal regnal names AND who speak French, I've added a link to a page I made on French Wikipedia. I hope it's complete enough, and if someone would like to translate it, I'll be honored. :o) Svitrigaila 23:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The pope is a monarch, so isn't the first sentence a bit redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groezy (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

What does this sentance mean...

Okay, it is a bit late, but I am struggling with trying to figure out how to clean up the following sentance: "Even where that is not the case, rulers may -in stead of a whole dynasty, as is the case with Georgian, referring to several Georges of the Hanoverian dynasty- become eponymous of their age, e.g. in Britain : Victorian (even applied tothe rest of the world, and less correct to its alledged prudish mentality), Edwardian." Maybe someone with a clearer mind could decipher this and please update the article. --JamesTeterenko 06:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Memory of earlier Charles's

The description of the memory in which Charles I and II are held seems pretty POV to me. While Charles I, is, indeed, not remembered terribly well, and did lose his head, this cuts both ways. We should recall that he was for a long time (and, for all I know, still is) considered a martyr to the Church of England, and venerated by Anglicans as such. And to just say that Charles II "is not remembered fondly" is rather strange. If anything, there has been a considerable anti-Whig, pro-Charles II turn in recent historiography, and one which has been rather more notably felt its influence in popular culture than it might have (a recent BBC miniseries about Charles II, with the king portrayed by Rufus Sewell, was quite positive). Beyond this, the general impression of Charles II outside of moralistic Whig circles has always been relatively positive - sure, he was a would-be tyrant, but he was personally pleasant, and made a good time of it. Beyond this, the whole "George VII" business needs an actual source - I've seen a lot of places that say "it is rumored that Charles will do this," but there's no actual evidence of this. john k 20:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Charles II was a very good king, for his times -- but hardly someone likely to be admired by the people in these plebean times. Arthur II might be fanciful and even charming, but undignified. George it may have to be. Just a thought.68.5.64.178 20:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Written Jan. 25, 2012: This section is dealing with the rumor that Prince Charles is/was considering taking the name George VII (instead of Charles III) when he becomes king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Arthur II?

"Both Charles and William have a middle name "Arthur", leading some to fanciful speculation that a real king of that mythical name might reign some day as Arthur II."

Why Arthur II, and not simply Arthur? Surely kings prior to William I are not included in the numbering (e.g. Edward I was later than Edward the Confessor)? I will remove "as Arthur II" unless anyone objects. Mtford 23:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Emperors of Ethiopia commonly adopted new names on succession. For example, Haile Selassie is a fairly common name in Ethiopia but it wasn't the baptismal name of the individual in question, who was always known as Tafari Makonnen prior to his accession. Why not mention this well-known example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.174 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, see this list: List of Emperors of Ethiopia. As this comment above is over 3 years old and still unanswered, and as I momentarily have a bit of time, I'll try and add Ethiopia here.--Mátyás (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm section

I'm concerned that Scotland & the name issue, is mentioned in that section. It makes it appear as though Scotland & England are seperate realms (which they're not). The United Kingdom is one realm (like Canada, Australia etc). GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This page offers this quotation: "she replied: "Oh, my own name; what else?""

while the page for Queen Elizabeth II says: "to which she replied: "Elizabeth, of course.""

Is there a consensus as to what she actually said? 70.74.188.103 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

UK regnal number compromise

I recall reading somewhere (and of course cannot remember where) that following the controversy in Scotland about the numbering Elizabeth II, a system was set up whereby any future monarch whose number would be different in England and Scotland will use the higher number. So Elizabeth stays Elizabeth II but a future King James, who would be the third in England and the eighth in Scotland, would be James VIII. Is that up? - Montréalais (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's true. See List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II#Scottish controversy.

Written Jan. 25, 2012: Can someone update this? When I clicked on this, I got sent to top of the Elizabeth II page. However, that page does include notice of controversy in Scotland, which had not had Queen Elizabeth I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Closed for editing

I would like to have this page closed from further editing until an ecclesiastical authority can verify the information on this particular page. --209.244.30.253 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Written Jan. 25, 2012: Did anyone ever elaborate on the reason for this request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2-word names?

I don't know if this is original research, but perhaps we could have a section about 2-word regnal names. The ones I know of are:

Pope John Paul (I, II)

Austrian emperor Franz Josef

French king Louis Philippe (notice there were several French kings called Louis, but only 1 Louis Philippe)

Spanish king Juan Carlos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

I have read on Wikipedia that she always chose to use her own name as queen (regnant). So she got the number II, causing the earlier Queen Elizabeth to be given the number I after not having had a number. (I knew this before I read, here on Wikipedia, controversy in Scotland because they had not had the earlier Elizabeth.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regnal name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114075322/http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/regindex.html to http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/regindex.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)