Talk:Regnal number

message: Marrtel 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence "Ordinals for monarchs before the 13th century are anachronisms, as are also ordinals for almost all later medieval monarchs." in the 2nd paragraph of #2 needs a source. The above link is now dead. Mcljlm (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of use of ordinals in medieval and later Europe 

message: Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was the son of Louis Bonaparte, brother of Napoléon I, and so he and Napoleon II were first cousins. 200.117.139.129 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distant cousin? 

message: Most of the section on consorts is totally irrelevant to the article. Would there be any objections to it being cut out? Sadly I'm not sure any of the info has a place in the Queen consort article either. Pontificake (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Our articles about Ptolemaic queens of Egypt and Ptolemaic dynasty suggest that they were co-monarchs, not consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the end of her reign, Queen Cleopatra VII was a sole monarch, not a co-monarch, but I digress. Is the same true of Ancient Egyptian Queens Consort prior to the Ptolemaic Dynasty? If you see the Article on the Fourth dynasty of Egypt, for example, the wives of Pharaohs are listed with ordinals as Queen Consort. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps because all that endogamy precludes distinguishing them with dynastic surnames as for modern consorts? —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consorts 

message: Consorts normally do not have numerals. The only exception is Ancient Egypt, which did assign numerals to Queens Consort. Queen Consort Cleopatra VII briefly became Queen Regnant after Marcus Antonius had her husband killed in order to marry her himself. She retained the name Cleopatra VII, which explains why she is Cleopatra VII even though Cleopatra is a girls' name and only 2 women ever held the office of Pharaoh. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Our articles about Ptolemaic queens of Egypt and Ptolemaic dynasty suggest that they were co-monarchs, not consorts. Surtsicna (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the end of her reign, Queen Cleopatra VII was a sole monarch, not a co-monarch, but I digress. Is the same true of Ancient Egyptian Queens Consort prior to the Ptolemaic Dynasty? If you see the Article on the Fourth dynasty of Egypt, for example, the wives of Pharaohs are listed with ordinals as Queen Consort. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps because all that endogamy precludes distinguishing them with dynastic surnames as for modern consorts? —Tamfang (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurate with one exception

message: I'm sure I've seen some listing of monarchs where those who had two names, like Wilhelm Friedrich or Louis-Philippe, had a separate number for each of the names.  Can someone tell me I'm not dreaming? —Tamfang (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems noone knows if this might be true... I haven't heard about it, and I think it would seem unnecessary to have two numbers for one person. The Horn Blower (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double numbering 

message: I think the Saxon Edwards, at least the Edward the Confessor, are sufficiently well-known that we don't need to cite them, any more than we need a citation for Elizabeth II being the second Elizabeth.  Sometimes the "citation needed" tag is just irritating, and so I'm deleting some of these.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikeangel (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for Saxon Edwards? 

message: : Other monarchies do assign ordinals to monarchs who are the only ones of their name. ... [This practice] was also applied in ... Portugal (where, although this is the general rule, Kings Joseph and Luís are usually referred to as "Joseph I" and "Luís I", although there were no Joseph II, nor Luís II) ...
I don't understand the first 'although'. —Tamfang (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. I'll remove it. The Horn Blower (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese uniques 

message: Ancient monarchs (i.e. Egyptian rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar II, Alexander III of Macedon) also assigned an ordinal number by later historians (i.e. after the use has become established in 18th century). On what section should this factoids be written? Bennylin (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be stated in the text, that all ordinals of ancient monarchs has been added by historians much later, and so acctually are anachronistic but are used as a practical way of distinguishing different historical kings from eachother, just as they are used in the same way in more recent centuries. The Horn Blower (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient monarchs 

message: The Khan of Kalat list includes some with number before the house/family name, some with number after, and some with both. Excluding those with neither, we have:
* 1601–1610	Mir Ahmad Khan Qambrani I
* 1629–1637	Mir Ahmad Sani Khan Qambrani II
* 1637–1647	Mir Altaz Khan Qambrani I
* 1656–1666	Mir Altaz Sani Khan Qambrani II
* 1666–1695	Mir Ahmad I Khan Qambrani III ( Changed his Royal family name from Qambrani to Ahmadzai )
* 1695–1697	Mir Mehrab Khan Ahmadzai I
* 1714–1716	Mir Ahmad II Khan Ahmadzai
* 1749–1794	Mir Muhammad Nasir Khan I Ahmadzai
* 1794–1817	Mir Mahmud Khan I Ahmadzai I
* 1817–1839	Mir Mehrab Khan Ahmadzai II
* 1841–1857	Mir Nasir Khan II Ahmadzai
* 1893–1931	Mir Mahmud Khan II Ahmadzai
Dunno if this is sloppy editing or something more interesting. jnestorius(talk) 17:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is definitely a consistency error there, but I'd have to see a formal published list of names before feeling comfortable editing them. Since it appears that the entire name is what receives the regnal number, it should always go at the end, but some of the names have additional names that break that rule, so I really can't say. Any decisions may also impact Template:Khans of Kalat, which has a secondary list of all the khans, as well as a non-standard use of succession boxes that should probably be detangled from the main template. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 19:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double numbering  

message: 'despite' seems a bit silly here. If they styled themselves 'the first' then naturally they wouldn't have had any predecessors with the same name. They wouldn't know at the time about successors with the same name. Mdrb55 (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first - Austrian example 

message: :
If King Arthur existed, he died before 1066, just like Edward the Confessor.  I can understand that a future king might be uneasy about taking the name Arthur with no number, but it seems to me he'd as readily disambiguate with ‘first’ (since that other Arthur has never been numbered) as with ‘second’. —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon we can do without that whole section "Future regnal numbers".  Undue weight / crystal ball.  We can cross that bridge when we come to it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Arthur 

message: : [of assigning numbers to pretenders] 
I am tempted to cut this sentence.  It is hard to support a negative; and "ethnic groups" seems inappropriate.  (Does the current Bonaparte heir have a number, by the way?) —Tamfang (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: His article – Charles, Prince Napoléon – says  which is ambiguous. —Tamfang (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  pretender counts 

message: I realize that "regnal" particularly refers to monarchs, but I was hoping this page had a section or at least a See Also link for how ordinal numbers are used with peerage.  For example, John Smith, 5th Baron Someplaceoranother.  Does that practice have a specific name? Jyg (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about peerages? 

message: :
I would either change state to dynasty or delete monarchs of.  (And were to was, either way.) Preferences? —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgaria