Queen Elizabeth died in 1603.
Good to be prepared:
Not in Scotland.
I’ve always wondered that. Why was James VI and I, but Brenda isn’t II and I? (see also also various Edwards and Georges)
I thought there were protests over it.
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/lost-edinburgh-the-queen-and-the-exploding-post-box-1-3529276
I’m surprised that the various news outlets didn’t let fly with their canned obituary articles.
When I worked at drkoop.com, we had a page ready to publish announcing C. Everett Koop’s death and talking about his accomplishments. He was 82 when we built the page, and outlived the company by 12 years.
Shame Wills n Kate didn’t call their first sprog James, just to check that the same principle would be applied if the Scottish number were the higher one.
BBC ready for Queen to die
Apparently not, if they can’t spell her name right.
Oh man, that kid is SO grounded.
Because in James I/VI’s time, Scotland and England were different countries (they just happened to have the same monarch – like, say, the UK and Canada today). The countries themselves united only in the early 18th century. Between James I/VI and the Union of Parliaments, there were two Charleses (which neither England nor Scotland had had before, so no problems with the numbering), another James (II/VII), William (III/II) and Mary (II in both cases, although the respective first Marys were different people) and Anne (again a new name).
After the Union of Parliaments, the double numbering was stopped because the resulting country was considered the “Kingdom of Great Britain” which replaced the former Kingdoms of England and Scotland (the “united” didn’t come in until the early 19th century, when the Kingdom of Great Britain merged with the Kingdom of Ireland). They could have started over from scratch but didn’t. The Scots hadn’t had any Georges, Williams, or Edwards as kings (let alone a Victoria) so the only “problematic” names so far are Elizabeth and James. As long as the Royals stay away from names like Henry, Edward, or Richard, or for that matter Malcolm or Donald, there should be little hassle in the future. They can always go for uncontroversial names such as Mortimer or Dwayne.
Well, Charlie III works okay, if he isn’t crowned as George VII I’ll be surprised, but that’s okay too.
Billy III might upset someone.
And then another Georgie.
We’ve already had a William III, thank you very much. And a fourth.
Kong would be good.
Duh, yeah.
Billy V, same issue. And Billy III was II in Scotland.
No one’s made this joke yet?
“Queen Elizabrth [sick] has died”
I beg your estimable pardon. After 1100 years, why should there not be another King Donald? Too soon?
And aren’t we overdue for another Egbert?
You’ve got my vote.
Or were you thinking…
