4 ms·

FWIW, there has never been a Charles V of Spain. Article referes to Charles I of Spain and V of elsewhere. This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_H

by narag 4y ago

FWIW, there has never been a Charles V of Spain. Article referes to Charles I of Spain and V of elsewhere. This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor Our last ruler of that name was Charles IV, we're still one Charles short: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV_of_Spain_and_His_Family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV_of_Spain_and_His_Fa...

herodotus 4y ago
Good call. Thanks for pointing this out. The original article in The Guardian does not make the same mistake.
namkt 4y ago
He was Charles I of Spain and V of Germany. Still good ol' Charles but different major version numbers; motherfucker inherited quite a bit of land. https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/10728/carlos-i-de-espana-y-v-de-alemania https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/10728/carlos-i-de-espana-y-v-d...
chrisbaker98 4y ago
This is the same reason why some Scottish people object to the late Queen Elizabeth being called "the Second".
- dboreham 4y ago
  Some? Edit: it's just wrong is what people object to. She was the first Elizabeth of the country. Same thing for James VI (not James I which was a different dude). Seemingly the government agreed because mailboxes in Scotland don't have EIIR : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    James isn't a good example because he was and still is commonly referred to as "James VI and I". I learnt that in primary school. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I Likewise for his son, James VII and II. AFAIK Elizabeth is the only post-Union monarch who took an "England only" regnal number that didn't gel with Scottish history.
    - chrisbaker98 4y ago
      Too late to edit but I realised there's another one: William "IV" was only the third William to rule Scotland. I guess we're in for another round of this when Charles dies and William the "fifth" takes the throne, although at the rate we're going Scotland might be a republic by then.

by narag 4y ago

herodotus 4y ago

Good call. Thanks for pointing this out. The original article in The Guardian does not make the same mistake.

namkt 4y ago

He was Charles I of Spain and V of Germany. Still good ol' Charles but different major version numbers; motherfucker inherited quite a bit of land. https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/10728/carlos-i-de-espana-y-v-de-alemania https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/10728/carlos-i-de-espana-y-v-d...

chrisbaker98 4y ago

This is the same reason why some Scottish people object to the late Queen Elizabeth being called "the Second".

dboreham 4y ago
Some? Edit: it's just wrong is what people object to. She was the first Elizabeth of the country. Same thing for James VI (not James I which was a different dude). Seemingly the government agreed because mailboxes in Scotland don't have EIIR : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  James isn't a good example because he was and still is commonly referred to as "James VI and I". I learnt that in primary school. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I Likewise for his son, James VII and II. AFAIK Elizabeth is the only post-Union monarch who took an "England only" regnal number that didn't gel with Scottish history.
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    Too late to edit but I realised there's another one: William "IV" was only the third William to rule Scotland. I guess we're in for another round of this when Charles dies and William the "fifth" takes the throne, although at the rate we're going Scotland might be a republic by then.