Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Madame Royale]

I just hope he'll be known as Charles III!

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

I just hope he'll be known as Charles III!

Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

Better look who would have been Charles III....

 

[Madame Royale]

Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

You don't know that, and there's no reason he shouldn't. It is his name, and being known as 'George' will only encouraged the eccentric illustration of a man which has haunted him for a number of years now. To be known by any other name would be rediculous, in this day and age anyhow.

And if he is of a superstitious mind, then he should perhaps rethink his position (at the time) as Supreme Governor of the Church of England because as we all know, superstition can't exist if you are a true believer of faith.

As for wikipedia? Hardly a source of reliable truth's.

Charles III he should be, though if he decides otherwise, I think this will imprint the image of a weak man on the minds of many (not least of all myself), who is scared to even use his own name for sake of association with Monarch's of an entirely different nature and era.

The Queen named her son Charles, and he should honour that.

 

[love_cc]

I don't agree that Prince Charles used George VII showed his weak character. Deciding what name is Prince Charles's own decision, I cannot see other people to tell him what name he should use. Moreoever there is no public record to show that he said he would use King Charles III or King George VI. All others are speculations. We have to wait until that minute to know the answer.

Now I prefer King Charles III because of C&C, years ago I tended to believe that Prince Charles will use King George VII as I saw the similar lines between King Edward VII and him. In general, Prince Charles can use whatever name he likes, just like Bertie chosed Edward VII instead of Albert, so did Beritie used George VI instead of Albert. It is his decision and his decision only.

Prince Charles may choose King George VI to honour his grandfather since he shows a lot of warmths in his relationships with Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

 

[Madame Royale]

His own person? Well, in current day society that's generally established by the use of one's own name. To be known as Charles from infancy only to abandon what is a perfectly sound and regal name upon his succession has no sense to it. No sense at all. And it would really be a dishonour to his parents who named him. As for honouring his grandfather? Build a momument! And if he shared such a warm relationship with his old granny, why not honour her and be known as Elizabeth III. I mean really.

Sure, his forbearers chose the name George, but what is Charles, a sheep? I see not how changing his name makes him his own person. Infact, by all logical thought, it doesn't.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

The Queen named her son Charles, and he should honour that.

And Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina. I fail to see your point.

 

[Madame Royale]

I'd expect no less...

She was, since childhood, formally styled HRH Princess Victoria of Kent. It remained that the english had become far too familiar with it and changing her name (though considered for a time) was seen undesirable.

A good lesson for a wandering princely ideal!

 

[love_cc]

how about Beritie for King Eward VII and Bertie for King George VI?
Prince Charles has many ways to honour his parents. I don't think his name during his reign must be one of it. If he picked up George VII, he just followed the example of King Eward VII. The historians have explantions for King Eward VII's decision and future historians will have their explanations for Prince Charles's decision.

 

[Madame Royale]

Follow the example? That's hardly being one's own person, now is it.

King George VI

Albert chose George, to emphasise contunuity with the reign of his father and restore confidence in the establishment. A decision I can understand when one think's about the circumstances of the day.

 

[LadyCat]

Okay, I'm confused. I thought Albert "Bertie"- Victoria's son - reigned as Edward VII and his son Georgie - 2nd son of Bertie and Alexandra - (1st son Albert Victor "Eddy" died prior to Bertie's reign) reigned as George VI.

Cat

 

[wbenson]

Georgie was George V, not George VI.

 

[Madame Royale]

George V was the second son of Edward VII and Alexandra.

George VI was the second son of George V and Mary.

 

[LadyCat]

I think what confused me most was all the "Bertie" references. In a family notorious for nicknames and giving several members of each generation the same name, it is hard to keep it all straight.

And you are entirely correct - I goofed on which George was the son of Bertie (Edward VII) and Alexandra - it was George V.

Cat

 

[Keystone]

I think that a King "George VII of England" (the regnal title I expect Charles to take) should look to Juan Carlos of Spain as a model to emulate. I think under "George VII" there may be a move to codify the English constitution, Scotland may succeed (and hopefully Wales too), many Commonwealth countries may go republican, and "George VII" will have an opportunity to recast the monarchy in England from an "Imperial" monarchy to one more in line with the Spanish or Scandinavian examples.... streamlined court, less excessive pomp or fuddy duddyness, yet while honoring those aspects of hereditary monarchy that do play a role in a democratic nation.

I think he can best let his sentiments be known by the causes he patronizes, rather then becoming a spokesman... which may conflict with his constitutional duties. The King of Spain does have opinions that on occasion he lets be known in public, and he does vote in referendums (and maybe in elections, this I don’t know for sure.) But he has tact to know the difference when to speak his mind and when not to.

I like Charles, and hope his wife becomes queen of England. I think he will do a great job, but it may be temptious as England will be going through many changes during his kingship.

 

[Madame Royale]

I'm curious as to why you should expect him to take the regnal name George?

He was but a child when his grandfather died, so hardly enough time to form a personal bond was established. What he knows of his grandfather would have come from his grandmother I should suspect, and although the two were particularly close that's still no reason to change his name.

Doing so would not be recieved with very much understanding I should think. A lot of rolling of the eyes and sighs perhaps, but that's about it.

Theres no reason why he should be known as anything other than the name with which he has been known his entire life.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I expect him to be King Charles.

 

[muriel]

...Scotland may succeed (and hopefully Wales too)...

I was keen to understand why you supported the break-up of the United Kingdom. Also, how do you link nationalist movements in Scotland and Wales to the crown?

 

[Keystone]

As for Charles regnal name... its simple really. His name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

Charles needs to recast his image once he becomes king, and there will be no better opportunity then when he does ascend the throne.


Despite being known as Charles... in truth it is an inauspicious name for English royalty. See Charles I and Charles II, not good precedents at all. Charles I was the strong proponant for absolute right, struggled with parliament to the point he brought down the monarchy and was executed. Charles II was known as the "Merrie Monarch, in reference to both the liveliness and hedonism" of his court. Our Prince Charles probably has had enough associations with hedonistic pleasures for seemingly selfishly (seemingly because I do not think he is selfish, Camilla was the love of his life) "abandoning" Diana in favor of an affair with Camilla. The press can too easily draw paralles between the two no matter had hard Charles and Camilla work for the public good, Charles' beliefs will be seen as outside of the mainstream.


The last King Phillip of England was the consort of Queen Mary I. An unlikely choice.


Arthur is too mistical... and clearly ment to associate the king of England with Arthur of legand. Every English monarch has born that name since the Tudors, IIRC. No English king can live up to the legands of Arthur.



George has far better associations. By choosing the regnal name George, he somewhat links his reign with that of his grandfather George VI. Charles as "George VII" can assert a new image for himself, divorced from the playboy image he had as Prince Charles.

I'm not for the break-up of the United Kingdom, just a truncating of it to just... the United Kingdom of England. And I like Charles alot.

I would restore a Welsh monarchy for Wales, and for Scotland a restored Stewart dynast. Otherwise, I would Wales and Scotland were independent republics.

 

[muriel]

I'm not for the break-up of the United Kingdom, just a truncating of it to just... the United Kingdom of England. And I like Charles alot.

I would restore a Welsh monarchy for Wales, and for Scotland a restored Stewart dynast. Otherwise, I would Wales and Scotland were independent republics.

`
Why do you support separate kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Arthur is too mistical... and clearly ment to associate the king of England with Arthur of legand. Every English monarch has born that name since the Tudors, IIRC. No English king can live up to the legands of Arthur.

I don't know where you got this idea but some basic research has revealed the following as the names of the Kings of England/Britain since Tudor times have been:

Henry VIII - just Henry
Edward VI - again just Edward
James I and VI - Charles James
Charles I - just Charles
Charles II - again just Charles
James II - again appears to be just the single name - James
William III - just the one name again - William
George I - George Ludwig
George II - George August
George III - just George
George IV - George Augustus Frederick
William IV - William Henry
Edward VII - Albert Edward
George V - George Frederick Christian Albert
Edward VIII - Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David
George VI - Albert Frederick Arthur George

Queen Victoria named her third son Arthur after the 1st Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, whose birthsay was the same and it is that Arthur that has been the inspiration for Arthur appearing in later names, not the mythical King Arthur.

So in fact since Tudor times only one King has had Arthur in his name and that was the last one whose Arthur clearly would have come from his great-uncle Arthur. Charles would be the second to have Arthur in his names.

Victoria did say that ALL sons in line to the throne amongst her descendents had to have Albert in their names and Charles will the first since Victoria's time not to have Albert in their name - just as his mother was the first princess not to have Victoria.

 

[Keystone]

`
Why do you support separate kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland?

I don't want to derail the topic but I guess I opened the door, eh? lol.

As for Wales, I guess I've never gotten over the 1284 Edwardian Conquest of my homeland? From my perspective, the English crown acquired Wales in a similar manner as Iraq tried to take Kuwait in the First Gulf War, or any aggressive country conquers another. Only...the the UN of the day (Catholic Church) acquiesced to it. I feel robbed of my history. I believe the Welsh would be better off economically had we been able to develop our own interests and keep investments within the country rather then siphoned off elsewhere. I believe Wales would be in a comparable position today as Denmark is next to Germany.

 

[Keystone]

I don't know where you got this idea but some basic research has revealed the following as the names of the Kings of England/Britain since Tudor times have been...

You forget Prince Arthur, first husband of Catherine of Aragon. And also Arthur, Duke of Brittany who was supposed to be king before King John.

Im sure there are many more not listed on Wiki.

 

[Keystone]

Look folks, I love England! I'm an Anglophile, speak English, and love Shakespeare! Just don't appreciate the conquest thing.

And it’s only a theory as to whether or not Charles will choose George as his regnal name. It's not even mine but a royal biographer (cant remember who, atm but he was on several talkshows here in the US!)


I like Charles as a person! And Camilla! Don't egg me!


lol

 

[Iluvbertie]

You forget Prince Arthur, first husband of Catherine of Aragon. And also Arthur, Duke of Brittany who was supposed to be king before King John.

Im sure there are many more not listed on Wiki.

You said

Every English monarch has born that name since the Tudors, IIRC.

so I didn't include those who were not Kings and deliberately left out the female monarchs as they wouldn't have Arthur in their names any way. The two examples you have given were never monarchs.

You also said since the Tudors so I only included those since the Tudors with the exception of Henry VII - the first of the Tudors - who also only had the one name. John's son pre-dates the Tudors by over 300 years.

Since the Tudors ONE monarch has had the name Arthur amongst their names not 'every' as you claimed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There have been comments by some friends that he might take George VII certainly but not in any of the biographies that I have. Can you please identfy which biographer?

 

[muriel]

The Welsh nationalistic movement is pretty muted, bit I can't see a relevant linkage between the arugument for and against a separate Welsh nation, and the reign of Charles / George VII / .....

 

[Keystone]

You said so I didn't include those who were not Kings and deliberately left out the female monarchs as they wouldn't have Arthur in their names any way. The two examples you have given were never monarchs.

You also said since the Tudors so I only included those since the Tudors with the exception of Henry VII - the first of the Tudors - who also only had the one name. John's son pre-dates the Tudors by over 300 years.

Since the Tudors ONE monarch has had the name Arthur amongst their names not 'every' as you claimed.

I may have overstated the use of Arthur, lol. But nevertheless, the thrust of the argument remains that it is highly doubtful Charles would chose Arthur as a regnal name.

Arthur, Duke of Brittany, was John's nephew for whom he is thought to have had murdered. Arthur was the son of Geoffery, John's older brother.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Using George, with Charles record is just as likely to see him compared with George IV, who like him had to wait a long time to be Kinf, was a philanderer and had a very public separation from his wife, to the point where he even refuseed to allow his wife into the Abbey on Coronation Day.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Personally, I hope he sticks with Charles.. although I wouldn't mind if he were Philip or Arthur either. But I'm honestly tired of George..

He has been Prince Charles for so long now, that to try and associate himself with another name seems almost ridiculous.

The Queen is now 84 years old. Prince Charles will be 62 next month.

If HM is anything like her mother, she could well live another 16 years.. which would leave Charles to ascend the throne at the age of 78.. very much older than William IV, who was crowned at the age of 64 (and is so far, the oldest monarch to be crowned).

I just can't imagine him with any other name than Charles.. so I hope he will be Charles III.. but if not, then Philip would be a good choice - there hasn't been one before - and that name would have zero comparisons to any other monarch.