55

This question is inspired by the recent news of Lashana Lynch taking over as 007.

Did the 007 position within MI6 begin with James Bond or did he take it over from a previous agent?

Charles
  • 14,298
  • 18
  • 108
  • 159
  • 2
    Although not in the original Fleming novels, it does appear that other 00 agents have been replaced see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/00_Agent So in the universe of James Bond, it certainly seems possible that another agent could be 007 either before or after Bond. – Matt Burland Jul 17 '19 at 16:55
  • 3
    If you want to delve into the real world, 16th-century royal advisor John Dee was known to sign sensitive documents to Queen Elizabeth with '007', meaning for her eyes only. The 00 looked like eyes, with the number 7 generally considered good luck. – Eric Soyke Jul 17 '19 at 17:19

3 Answers3

56

That depends on the source

According to the wiki, Bond is the only 007 in Ian Fleming's Bond stories:

James Bond is the only agent 007. In the novel You Only Live Twice, Bond was transferred into another branch and given the number 7777, suggesting there was no active agent 007 in that time; he is later reinstated as 007 in the novel The Man with the Golden Gun.

But the Bond stories from Anthony Horowitz's novel, he takes it from another agent:

In Anthony Horowitz's continuation novel, set before the events of Casino Royale, an unnamed agent 007 is murdered, which leads to James Bond taking over the code-number in Forever and A Day, thus marking his first ever assignment as a 00-agent.

It's never explicitly said in the movies, but the first Eon Production Films 007 movie was Dr. No (1962) which is an adaptation of Ian Fleming's novel, so we can safely assume that the movies have the same backstory as the novels.

Gustavo Gabriel
  • 14,542
  • 4
  • 70
  • 112
  • 24
    There is no proof of it of course, but there is also the fan theory that each actor is actually a different Bond, the prior one having retired from the field or er... been retired in the field, just not on camera for us to watch. – Baldrickk Jul 16 '19 at 12:57
  • 5
    @Baldrickk If for no other reason than the fact that Bond in 2018 is somehow younger than he was in 1962? – Darrel Hoffman Jul 16 '19 at 13:53
  • 9
    Actual numbering is 007a, 007b.. – TaW Jul 16 '19 at 15:36
  • 7
    @Baldrickk That theory doesn't really hold water. Many times throughout the series we get references that point to the fact that it is the same person. – theblitz Jul 16 '19 at 18:13
  • 9
    Actually - there's a clear indication that every bond from lazenby to dalton are the same bond- Moore gets his revenge on a wheelchair bound, and uncredited Blofeld in for your eyes only, for the death of Tracy Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Tracy Bond is referenced in Licence to Kill and Spy who loved me – Journeyman Geek Jul 17 '19 at 06:07
  • 1
    Is the wiki entry really evidence that there was never a 007 before James, though? All this really says is that the novels don't contain another agent 007, not that there was never one before. I'm not sure that that part really answers the question at all. –  Jul 17 '19 at 07:46
  • 2
    @JourneymanGeek Do we, or do we get clear indications from MI6 that there is only the one and only James Bond? Look, he took revenge on the killer of his wife here! That other agent you killed and had a head stuck on a pike was some other guy, the genuine legendary super agent James Bond is still alive. Trust us, we're MI6… – Odalrick Jul 17 '19 at 11:35
  • 2
    @JourneymanGeek But Lazenby at least is not the same as Connery - he even says in his first fight scene after getting the snot beat out of him that "This never happened to the other guy". – Darrel Hoffman Jul 17 '19 at 13:04
  • 1
    Well, that could be breaking the 4th wall - and there's a reason I left out Connery there. – Journeyman Geek Jul 17 '19 at 13:09
  • 1
    @Baldrickk - that theory would suggest that 007 isn't the code name at all, but 007 James Bond is the code name. – Matt Burland Jul 17 '19 at 16:52
  • 1
    Isn't it established that the Craig films are a reboot, not set in the same continuity as the older ones? – user2752467 Jul 17 '19 at 21:43
  • 2
    @JourneymanGeek not only do we see Tracy Bond's grave, we also see his father Andrew Bond's grave in SkyFall. I think the Bond-as-codename theory has been debunked many times now, and been around so long that the scene in Skyfall was there to explicitly renounce it.. – John Smith Optional Jul 18 '19 at 00:01
  • 1
    @JohnSmithOptional plus Kincade, the groundskeeper in Skyfall, specifically knew Bond as a child growing up at the Skyfall estate. – Moo Jul 18 '19 at 04:34
  • Maybe each Bond is the previous Bond's son? That way the references and revenge make sense, as does the reference to Tracy Bond? :D – djsmiley2kStaysInside Jul 18 '19 at 17:24
  • I don't really understand why this answer has so many upvotes. Wikipedia is not a first party source. – Django Reinhardt Jul 18 '19 at 18:04
  • The DC Films are a reboot, so it can be a whole new ball game as per any theories. @JustinLardinois They can do whatever they want with it, pretty much. – Baldrickk Jul 24 '19 at 11:01
  • @MattBurland I'd go so far as to say that 007 is a designation and James bond would be the code name ;) – Baldrickk Jul 24 '19 at 11:02
7

The spy designation 007 dates back to well before the time of Ian Fleming.

Queen Elizabeth I used spies, as did most people in power in those days, and one of these was a colourful character called John Dee who had the code name 007: vide http://www.woe.edu.pl/content/dr-john-dee-original-007

It is thought that Ian Fleming chose 007 for his spy from reading about John Dee.

Isaac71
  • 71
  • 1
5

Alec Trevelyan played agent 006 in Goldeneye, which clearly implies the numbers are sequential and incremental.

So its reasonable to assume that there are have been least 6 other double-0 agents and potentially more afterward.

Horowitz's book (Trigger Mortis) is not a Fleming book, but it "draws inspiration from unpublished notes" and therefore has less "authority" or credulence than Fleming's own words. However there are only 12 Fleming novels and 9 short stories published in the Canon from which to draw. (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories )

Criggie
  • 1,265
  • 8
  • 17
  • 2
    I think you misunderstood the question. OP was not asking about 001-006. OP was asking about 007a, 007b, etc. – Evorlor Jul 17 '19 at 23:10
  • 9
    The existence of 006 doesn't seem to imply that the numbers are sequential and incremental. Maybe each agent gets to choose their own number, for example. – David Richerby Jul 18 '19 at 12:24
  • @DavidRicherby It implies it but doesn't prove it. – Segfault Jul 18 '19 at 20:15
  • 2
    @Segfault It doesn't imply it at all. "A implies B" means that, if A happens, then B must happen also. It is not true that, if there is a 006, the numbers must be sequential and incremental. The existence of 006 is consistent with the hypothesis that the numbers are sequential and incremental but you can't say anything stronger than that. – David Richerby Jul 18 '19 at 20:28
  • @DavidRicherby we're using different definitions of imply. My usage (and Criggies) is the one that is synonymous with "hint". – Segfault Jul 19 '19 at 14:30
  • 2
    it's funny people are stuck on the word implies, the fact that there was a 006 to me this is a clear indication of sequential numbering – Huangism Jul 22 '19 at 18:33
  • @Huangism Goldeneye also shows Alex's character as somewhat of a father-elder type figure to James, with a more world-aware attitude and a "you'll understand someday" This again implies that 006 has been in the game longer than 007. – Criggie Jul 22 '19 at 18:47
  • @Huangism Id have to go back and reread the novels and watch the movies again, but its fairly well established that the “00” designation is the “license to kill”, not that agents are sequentially numbered as they come and go. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/00_Agent – Moo Jun 30 '21 at 03:15
  • 2
    When I saw GE in the theater (as a teen), the conclusion I immediately reached re: 006 was that their having adjacent numbers was a coincidence meant by filmmakers to bolster the idea that James and Alec are unusually friendly colleagues -- really solid buddies, not merely fellow agents. It is absurd that agents' codenumbers would be assigned sequentially, because to do so would reveal to Britain's enemies how many agents HMSS employs! E.g. the Soviets would, like other commenters here, deduce that Britain has at least 7 top-tier spies. No spymaster would make such a careless blunder. – Tom Feb 05 '22 at 05:03
  • 2
    There are at least 9 double-0 agents if we accept that they are sequential - 009 is killed at the start of Octopussy. – Player One Oct 26 '22 at 22:04