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

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-d...

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

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

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

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.

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.