Though it might be hard to imagine now, Queen Elizabeth II wasn’t always the queen. She was born Princess Elizabeth. And when she succeeded her father to the throne, she had to decide what she wanted to use as her regnal name. Regnal names consist of a name — Elizabeth, in this case — plus a Roman numeral, which makes each sovereign’s name unique.
Queen Elizabeth II reportedly has some options for letting Prince Charles take over her duties without making her abdicate. Elizabeth I was a long-ruling queen of England, governing with relative stability and prosperity for 44 years. The Elizabethan era is named for her.
But have you ever thought about why Queen Elizabeth II is the second Queen Elizabeth? Who was Queen Elizabeth I? And how is Queen Elizabeth II related to Queen Elizabeth I? Here’s what you need to know.
Who was Queen Elizabeth I?
Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533 – 1603) knights explorer Sir Francis Drake (c.1540 – 1596). | Hulton Archive/ Getty Images
As Royal Central notes, Queen Elizabeth I was England’s first Queen Elizabeth. She once held the record as the longest-ruling queen of England, reigning for 44 years between 1558 and 1603. As the daughter of King Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth I was born a princess. But she was declared illegitimate through what Biography characterizes as “political machinations.” But eventually, upon the death of her half-sister, Mary Tudor, she took the crown. Her reign is referred to as “the Golden Age” or the era of “Elizabethan England,” a time of peace and prosperity.
Royal Central reports that though we use the Roman numeral “I” now, that’s not how the first Queen Elizabeth wrote her name during her reign. But during her time, she was simply known as Elizabeth of England. At the time of Queen Elizabeth II’s accession to the throne in 1952, historical references were changed to include the “I” to prevent any confusion.
How is Queen Elizabeth II related to Queen Elizabeth I?
Queen Elizabeth I had no children. So with her death came the end of the house of Tudor, the family that had ruled England since the late 1400s. As several Quora users discuss, that means that Queen Elizabeth II isn’t directly descended from Queen Elizabeth I herself. But they are related. As the daughter of King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth I was the granddaughter of King Henry VII. Queen Elizabeth II is also related to King Henry VII because his daughter Margaret married into the House of Stuart in Scotland.
When Queen Elizabeth I died without an heir, Margaret’s great-grandson James VI of Scotland became the new monarch, reigning as King James I of England. Just as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts, it then passed to the Hanovers. The Hanovers established the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. That house was renamed the House of Windsor, to which Queen Elizabeth II belongs.
![Queen Elizabeth Queen Elizabeth](/uploads/1/2/6/3/126355955/309677849.jpg)
So who was their last common ancestor?
The marriage of Henry VII (1457 – 1509), the first Tudor King of England, to Elizabeth of York (1465 – 1503). | Hulton Archive/ Getty Images
Confused? We don’t blame you — the royal family tree and the line of succession is famously complicated. Put another way, Queen Elizabeth II is related to Queen Elizabeth I through a common ancestor: King Henry VII. That means that Queen Elizabeth II is the first cousin of Elizabeth I, either 13 or 14 times removed, depending on whom you ask. As one Quora user helpfully outlined it, Queen Elizabeth I’s descent from Henry VII is:
- Henry VII
- Henry VIII
- Elizabeth I
Queen Elizabeth II’s is much longer. But you can still see how she descended from Henry VII, the ancestor she has in common with Queen Elizabeth I:
- Henry VII
- Margaret Tudor
- James V, King of Scots
- Mary I, Queen of Scots
- James VI and I (descended from Margaret Tudor on his father’s side)
- Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia
- Sophia of Hanover
- George I
- George II
- George III
- Edward, Duke of Kent
- Victoria
- Edward VII
- George V
- George VI
- Elizabeth II
![Queen Elizabeth Queen Elizabeth](/uploads/1/2/6/3/126355955/464460638.jpg)
Why did Queen Elizabeth II choose her regnal name?
Queen Elizabeth II is distantly related to Queen Elizabeth I. But that’s probably not why she chose to reign as Queen Elizabeth II. Royal Central reports that most monarchs of the United Kingdom have used their baptismal name as their regnal name. Queen Victoria, born Alexandrina Victoria; King Edward VII, born Albert Edward; and King George VI, born Albert Frederick Arthur George, are the three exceptions.
When Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary became queen in 1952. When she was asked what regnal name she would take, she reportedly replied, “My own of course — what else?” When the queen dies, she will be succeeded by her son, Prince Charles. And many people think that he might adopt a different regnal name because of the unfortunate associations with previous monarchs named Charles.
Read more: Is the Queen Related to Her Husband, Prince Philip?
Check out The Cheat Sheet on Facebook!
Published 9:26 PM EST Dec 6, 2019
Despite decades of assurances that Queen Elizabeth II intends to stay 'on the job' until the end, suddenly the British media are hinting that Her Majesty is thinking of retiring in 18 months when she turns 95, leaving Prince Charles to carry on as prince regent.
Now comes word from the Prince of Wales' office of what the queen might say about these reports: No way, no how.
A statement Thursday from Clarence House, Charles's London palace and office, denied the queen has retirement in mind or even that there have been discussions about it.
“There are no plans for any change in arrangements at the age of 95 — or any other age,” said the statement, confirmed by USA TODAY.
It is significant that Clarence House thought this long-established assumption about the longest-reigning monarch in British history (67 years and counting) had to be reiterated.
Having sworn herself to royal duty since even before she became the sovereign in 1952, the queen has let it be known that she would never abdicate, never quit, never retire. And at 93, she has slowed down but she is still in good health.
So why the speculation and rumors about retirement now?
Because her second son, Prince Andrew the Duke of York, 59, has retired himself, announcing that he was 'stepping back' from all royal duties for 'the foreseeable future' in the wake of crisis-level embarrassment over his relationship with an American convicted sex offender and his failure to plausibly explain it in a widely condemned interview with the BBC last month.
Andrew said he asked the queen's permission to quit the royal spotlight and she agreed. British tabloid headlines trumpeted that the queen 'sacked' Andrew. Then the headlines shifted: She consulted with Charles, 71, and his son, Prince William, 37, second in line to the throne, who pushed to push out Andrew.
And then new headlines said Prince Philip, the queen's 98-year-old husband who retired two years ago, made it clear that Andrew had to go for the sake of saving the monarchy.
The furor, routinely described as the worst royal crisis in decades, re-energized talk in the British media about the queen retiring, and even talk among die-hard republicans and in the pages of The Guardian about getting rid of the monarchy altogether.
'Let's get off our knees and abolish the monarchy,' read the headline on columnist Suzanne Moore's piece in The Guardian last month. 'Andrew wasn’t just a bad apple: he comes from a royal orchard of them. It’s time Britain matured as a republic.'
A 2018 biography of Charles, 'Charles at Seventy: Our Future King,' by veteran royal correspondent Robert Jobson, quoted unnamed senior royal officials in reporting that Charles is already a 'shadow king' and the queen could stand aside at 95, allowing him to become prince regent with power to reign in her place.
But American royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith, author of books on the queen and on Charles, says she doesn't give much credence to the stories about the queen bowing out early.
She said such talk has floated around for years; it's come back to the fore, she told USA TODAY, thanks to the Andrew mess. But Smith says the queen's pledge, first made at age 21 and reaffirmed several times since, has been to serve as monarch until her death.
'I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong,' she said in her 21st birthday speech broadcast to the world via radio from South Africa.
Smith quotes the late Margaret Rhodes, the queen's first cousin, who reported what the queen said in 2003 when the Archbishop of Canterbury announced he would retire.
'The queen sighed and said, 'Oh, that's something I can't do. I am going to carry on to the end,' ' Smith said. The queen's only caveat would be unless she had a stroke or Alzheimer's. 'But Margaret Rhodes added, 'even then she wouldn't retire.' '
Besides, British law would not allow the queen to simply give Charles the power to reign on her behalf – it's more complicated than that and involves agreement among more people under the Regency Act.
Three of five individuals, including the husband of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls, must declare in writing that the Sovereign is unable 'by reason of infirmity of mind or body' to carry out royal duties, Smith explained.
'The evidence of physicians is required to make the judgment of incapacity,' Smith says. 'In other words, there is a set procedure, and it is something that wouldn't be invoked lightly. It's a big deal.'
Published 9:26 PM EST Dec 6, 2019