Insights into an Era

[pharmaT]

I did wonder if he was taking a risk making a note of it. If Cromwell’s men had seen it, it might not have gone down too well.

Surely only a risk if he wrote down that he disapproved? He could argue that he was celebrating the event.

[Retriever]

I don’t think the fact he gave the king his full title and didn’t refer to him as “that .... previously known as” would have been looked at favourably.

[CarolA3]

The one that stays with me, although stupidly being new to research/recording I didn't note down where I saw it, was:

On this day King Charles the first was beheaded

If it said 'the first' then logically it couldn't have been written before the coronation of 'the second' in 1661

Carol

[Retriever]

Oops, you are right of course. I should have just put King Charles.

At the time I don’t suppose they ever expected there would be another.

[CarolA3]

Tip of the day - if you come across a coin, document, or indeed anything referring to '(Monarch) the First' don't buy it - it won't fund your retirement

Ditto anything dated 'BC'.

Carol

[Viktoria]

Sorry but I don’t see why the Regnal number would not be used  on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.
We don’t know how many more Elizabeths there will be but we use the Regnal number.
I do agree that Victoria was also the first of that name but we do not say Victoria The First.
It is an interesting point
Viktoria.

[Maiden Stone]

Sorry but I don’t see why the Regnal number would not be used  on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.

His son & heir was also Charles. If the curate was Royalist he would have thought of him as King Charles the Second of that name. When Charles 2 finally got his throne back he probably dated his accession from the date of his father's death. (It's a long time since O Level history.)
Anyway Retriever can't remember the register and may have forgotten the exact wording. It may have been "this day was the King  executed". The present monarch is referred to as "the Queen" in news reports &c in Britain; it's not necessary to name her, there's no risk of a reader, viewer or listener confusing her with another monarch. 

[Maiden Stone]

A Catholic priest in rural 18th century Lancashire used space in the notebook containing baptisms, marriages and deaths for anything else he wanted to write. There are recipes, cures and journal entries such as invitations to supper. It may have been the only notebook he had.

An Irish register has a piece of paper stuck on a page. It seems to be about settlement of a dispute or a debt between 2 parishioners, witnessed and recorded by the priest. Unfortunately the paper obscures most entries on the page.

[Sloe Gin]

Sorry but I don’t see why the Regnal number would not be used  on the date of his execution.
He was the first king of that name and yes it did not look as if there would ever be a second but it is a question of was it proper protocol to use his Regnal number.
We don’t know how many more Elizabeths there will be but we use the Regnal number.
I do agree that Victoria was also the first of that name but we do not say Victoria The First.
It is an interesting point
Viktoria.

A regnal number is never used before there is a second monarch of that name.
So we have King Stephen, King John, Queen Anne, Queen Victoria.  None of these will be referred to as "the First" until there is a Second.