10

Tommen ascends to the Iron Throne after his brother Joffrey's death, and at least in the TV series is referred to as being the "First of his Name". However, there were already at least two Lannister Kings of the West, or the Westerlands, or of Casterly Rock, named Tommen.

So, why isn't the books' King Tommen the third of his name?

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    tsk, tsk. Asking why the first person named Tommen to be king of all Westeros is not called Tommen the Third seems kind of silly. Almost as silly as the first ever King of Sicily being Roger II, or the first women named Elizabeth to be Queen of the UK, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu would be called Elizabeth II. Oops, bad real life examples.
    – M. A. Golding
    Feb 14, 2018 at 18:08

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
20

According to So Spake Martin, Tommen will rule as the first of his name.

Will Tommen rule as Tommen I of House Baratheon, or Tommen III (?) of House Lannister?

Tommen the 1st.

The current numbering dates to Aegon's Conquest; the kings of the predecessor kingdoms don't count. It was the same in England after the Norman Conquest. Edward Longshanks was Edward I, and never mind all the Saxon Edwards who had come before 1066.

Improve this answer
1
  • Wrong. William the Usurper always claimed to be the rightful heir of the Anglo Saxon kings. The Kingdom of England was officially founded by Aethelstan in 927, not William in 1066. English Kings didn't start using official numbers until Henry VIII. But in the reign of Edward son of Edward son of Edward people started calling them the first, the second, and the third to tell them apart, and when Henry VIII's son Edward became king he continued counting from Longshanks. The 2 Saxon Edwards were both saints, nicknamed the Martyr and the Confessor, so didn't need numbers anyway.
    – M. A. Golding
    Feb 14, 2018 at 18:21
30

Numbering starts with the beginning of the Targaryen dynasty. Previous dynasties and local rulers don't count.

It is similar to the monarchs of England being numbered from the Norman Conquest in 1066. For example, Edward Longshanks (reigned 1272-1307) is known as Edward I, even though there were pre-Conquest kings of England of that name, such as Edward the Confessor (1042-1066).

Improve this answer
5
  • Similarly - James I of Great Britain and Ireland was James VI of Scotland (which became part of the union when James acceded to the thrones of England and Ireland after Elizabeth's death)
    – HorusKol
    Nov 10, 2015 at 4:26
  • 2
    @HorusKol: Not so -- James VI of Scotland was (at the same time) James I of England. In Scotland, he continued to be known as James VI. The title "King/Queen of Great Britain and Ireland" didn't exist at the time, and wouldn't until the reign of Queen Anne over 100 years later. Regnal numbers in the UK are still counted from the Norman Conquest -- a source of some annoyance in Scotland, because the present Queen is known as Elizabeth II, even though Scotland never had a Queen Elizabeth I.
    – Royal Canadian Bandit
    Nov 10, 2015 at 9:28
  • On the Wikipedia page of James I - he styled himself 'King of Great Britain and Ireland' - it was a personal union. You're correct that The Union wouldn't happen for another 100 years, though
    – HorusKol
    Nov 10, 2015 at 22:06
  • Wrong. Legally there was no change in 1066. The Kingdom of England lasted from 927 to 1707. Not only did Scotland never have a Queen Elizabeth I, neither did the United Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu, the countries where the current monarch is illogically called Elizabeth II.
    – M. A. Golding
    Feb 14, 2018 at 18:37
  • 1
    The Norman conquest in 1066 didn't create a new kingdom. The kingdom of England lasted from 927 to 1707. But kings of England didn't use an official number until Henry VIII. Henry's son Edward VI didn't count from the Saxon Kings Saint Edward the Martyr and Saint Edward the Confessor because everyone knew them by those nicknames and because he was continuing the informal habit of numbering from Edward I Longshanks which started in the reign of his grandson Edward III to tell father, son, and grandson apart. It had nothing to do with thinking Saxon kings were inferior or foreign.
    – M. A. Golding
    Feb 14, 2018 at 19:08
20

Well, he is Tommen I, King of the Seven Kingdoms. The other Tommens were kings of the Westerlands, as you said.

It has nothing to do with which House he is from. It has to do with what kingdom he rules. The Westerlands used to be an independent kingdom, and it had several Lannister kings named Tommen. After Aegon's conquest the Westerlands became a lordship. Tommen is now the king of the whole realm, aka the Seven Kingdoms, aka Westeros. He is the first King of Westeros named Tommen. If there had been a Targaryen king of Westeros named Tommen, then Tommen Baratheon would have been Tommen the Second.

Improve this answer
15
  • 3
    There's ample historical precedent for this. King James VI of Scotland and King James I of Great Britain were one and the same person (before and after the union of Scotland and England).
    – Peter Shor
    May 19, 2014 at 0:38
  • 9
    Peter Shor: Not quite. James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603 (while retaining his old title in Scotland). There was no such thing as a King/Queen of Great Britain until the Union of 1707.
    – Royal Canadian Bandit
    May 19, 2014 at 1:08
  • 6
    He is the first Tommen Baratheon. Sure, there where other Tommens, but never one that shared his full name.
    – Monty129
    May 19, 2014 at 11:39
  • 8
    There is the case of Emperor Charles V, who was at the same time King Charles I of Spain. This person has two different numbers because these were two different kingdoms (well, one kingdom and one empire). In the case of Westeros/7 kingdoms, it is a different kingdom from Westerland alone.
    – Envite
    May 19, 2014 at 12:00
  • 2
    I'd just like to point out that there were no "Kings of the Westerlands", they were "Kings of the Rock".
    – EldritchWarlord
    Jun 19, 2014 at 18:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.