Not exactly Tudor related, but I thought I would ask:
Why was Edward 'Longshanks' numbered as 'Edward I'? Shouldn't he be 'Edward II' as there was Edward the Confessor before him?
And why wasn't Edward the Confessor numbered?
[Ed note - Normally I shy away from posting questions too far removed from the Tudor period, but the second part ties in to our recent "numbering" discussion. And the submitter didn't leave an email address, so I couldn't respond directly.]
Related thread: http://tudorhistory.org/queryblog/2008/10/question-from-kelly-numbering-of-future.html