Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[James VI]

Continuity

I was using the word continuity in it`s wider context. In it`s very narrow sense, each new monarch would indeed adopt the regnal name of their immediate predecessor ( King Elizabeth??!! ) The regnal names of British Kings, either by birth or adoption, reflect the importance of each successive Royal house, their place in British history and their relevance to modern society. I would hope that the Prince of Wales does indeed use his birth name, a natural progression from King Charles III to King William V would be a perfect example.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It has long been said that Charles is going with George VII. Is that rumor or fact? I highly doubt he will be Charles III because of the association with Charles I, but it's not like he will reign for long. Either name he chooses is boring and old, that's the BRF for you. I'm still pissed Edward VIII didn't choose to be King David, that would have been great.

When has it been said he will use the name George VII?
Also, as someone mentioned if Elizabeth and Philip can get past naming their first born Charles, I think the rest of the world can. Hardly anybody, myself including cares or even knows the incidents surrounding Charles I. King David does sound truly ridiculous for a regnal name. As for boring, would you prefer we had King Moses on the throne or Queen Blue Ivy? What less boring names would you suggest Charles go with?
The names are traditional, Charles, William, Anne, Andrew, Edward, Henry etc they're royal names, they're tradition.

 

[Jacknch]

The only time I have heard it said that Charles will use George as his regnal name was in the media on a quiet news day. Personally, I think he will be King Charles. I would add though that it's gonna be a long time before I get used to saying "the King" when referencing the monarch!

 

[Baroness of Books]

I also hope Charles retains his given name upon becoming king; it never occurred to me that he wouldn't although it's never a fait accompli that a monarch would keep a birth name. Even the Queen was asked what name she would take upon her accession, whereupon her response was, "My own, of course" (or words to that effect).

 

[James VI]

Regnal titles

The example of Queen Victoria, is even more interesting. She was baptised Alexandrina, in honour of Tsar Alexander, with Victoria given as a second name, in honour of her mother. As a child she was refered to as " Drina " and it was assumed that when she succeeded her Uncle to the throne, she would reign as Queen Alexandrina. But at her first Privy Council meeting, on the morning of her accession, she signed her name Victoria and was thus known, for the rest of her reign. Monarch`s do indeed have some leeway on the issue of Regnal names and although i am wedded to the traditional names, favoured by the Royal family and believe in the importance of continuity ( in it`s broad sense ) it will be interesting to see if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will make a break with tradition, i wonder?

 

[MARG]

Interesting information on Victoria. I can't help but feel that her decision to be "Victoria" rather than Alexandrina was her final underscoring her total rejection of previous life under the thumb of her mother and Sir John Conroy and the manipulative "Kensington System".

Fortunately Prince Charles has no such point to make and has every reason to become "King Charles" as it is the given name he has carried for over 60 years, through good times and bad!

 

[Mermaid1962]

I don't. Prince Charles has done many good things in his position of Prince of Wales. However, I'd prefer that he reign as King Charles III.

Personally I think it's sad that people still seek to define him solely by his failed marriage (which failed for two people not just one).

 

[Jenafran]

Edward VII was 60 when he became King, and he had always been known as Bertie. I read somewhere that he took the name Edward out of spite for his parents, though.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Really? With an abdication even before the coronation? That's great for you?

What does the freakin abdication have to do with any of this?! Whether he left 8 mos in or not he was still known as Edward VIII for that time period. I'm just saying it would be cool if he had chosen David instead.

As for the old boring names, I do get the point of them. I am not the one who said they need to be modernized so Lumetqueen and her posse need to turn their spite somewhere else. I am fully aware of the old, boring, and too often used names of the BRF, and I know there point. I'm not part of the group that thinks modern names should be utilized, nor did I ever say they should be.

On the other hand, there are various traditional English names that definitely should make a resurgence; didn't the Middleton's name their kids traditional but not overused Names of monarchs?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Edward VII was 60 when he became King, and he had always been known as Bertie. I read somewhere that he took the name Edward out of spite for his parents, though.

We don't know why he chose Edward other than his stated reason - given at the Accession Council in 1901 - that he had been christened/baptised Albert Edward with the understanding that he would reign as Albert Edward but he had decided to go with Edward alone as he believed that his father's name of Albert, known universally [sic] as 'Albert the Good', should stand alone.

I know of no source that definitively says anything else - although there are some suggestions that he decided to drop Albert because he didn't have the best of relationships with his father - none that I can remember coming directly from him whereas the above comments are from his speech at his Accession Council (not verbatim as I don't have the actual speech to hand).

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Iluvbertie, in your first paragraph were you saying that Prince Albert was known as Albert The Good? If so I had never heard that before.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The only time I have ever heard that is in this speech by Edward VII - which is why I put the word 'sic' in there - I have never heard or read that he was either during his own lifetime or in the widowhood of Victoria but it was how his eldest son referred to him that day.

 

[Nice Nofret]

.. I'm sure, that's what Victoria said, when speaking about Albert - WE wouldn't have heard those speeches - but Bertie - all his life long to the day of his accession ... I could understand, if he was sick of it ..

 

[Kataryn]

What does the freakin abdication have to do with any of this?! Whether he left 8 mos in or not he was still known as Edward VIII for that time period. I'm just saying it would be cool if he had chosen David instead.

Yes, but of course anyone would have thought of the mythical King David of the bible when the Supreme Governor of the Church of England chose this name for himself - only to abdicate some months later to marry against clerical laws...

Especially as the Stone of Scone is mythically believed to have been the stone on which king David was crowned...And then no coronation of this "new David" - it would have been an impossible choice for Edward knowing what was already going on and where his preferences lay.

We know that Elizbeth II. dislikes and discourages any comparison of her reign with that of "Gloriana" - Elizabeth I. Nobody believes Charles will go for "King Arthur" for obvious reasons. But both could pull it through: Charles would make a great Arthur. But David (Edward VIII.) never would have made a proper "King David" and he knew that. IMHO, of course.

 

[Jenafran]

Well if he is going to honor someone, how his father or "honorary grandfather", Louis Mountbatten?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

There was really a need to make a separate thread? Really?
Good gracious.

 

[Madame Royale]

The fact that this particular topic has taken up 4 pages (and will no doubt only continue to grow in length) would suggest that there was.

Hardly an issue..

 

[Kataryn]

.. I'm sure, that's what Victoria said, when speaking about Albert - WE wouldn't have heard those speeches - but Bertie - all his life long to the day of his accession ... I could understand, if he was sick of it ..

She did not necessarily talk about him as "Albert The Good" but may have talked constantly about her "good Albert", but to a son with a strained relationship to first both parents and then his widowed mother something like that can easily start to sound like talking about "Albert The Good"...

 

[Kotroman]

I would have to disagree with Lumutqueen's statement that the name David is "truly ridiculous for a regnal name" and Kataryn's opinion that it would have been weird for another King David to be crowned at the Stone of Scone. Neither of those are unheard of. King David I of Scotland was crowned at the Stone and there was also King David II. IMO, Edward VIII would have made a great David III. Then again, it could be true that I'd simply like to see Scottish names reused.

I believe Charles Philip Arthur George will reign as Charles III.

Has anyone thought about the possibility of him choosing to reign as Philip II (Philip I being Mary I of England's husband and co-monarch)? It would be a way to honour his father. William Arthur Philip Louis could then reign as Philip III, but that's really too far fetched.

 

[Artemisia]

Edward VII was 60 when he became King, and he had always been known as Bertie. I read somewhere that he took the name Edward out of spite for his parents, though.

I don't think it was out of spite.
Queen Victoria had made it known that she did not want any future monarch to bear the name Albert. She felt that a monarch with the name would eclipse the memory of her beloved husband, Prince Albert, The Prince Consort. It is likely Edward VII did not choose his first given name as his regnal out of respect for his mother's wished; they might not have been particularly close, but he certainly respected her.

 

[James VI]

Edward VII

There may have been another reason why Edward VII choose not to reign under his birth name. Despite the rash of copy cat naming of baby boys, after 1840, the name " Albert " was relatively rare in British society, and still regarded as being rather foreign. Certainly in comparison to the traditional names favoured by British Monarchs, it sticks out like a sore thumb. King Albert I of Great Britain and Ireland.....no, even after more than a century, it just does`nt sound right.

 

[Kataryn]

But it's regal -at the moment we have two reigning Alberts, both the second of their name... of Belgium and of Monaco.

 

[Lumutqueen]

This puzzles me, the whole regal name thing. If your parents take the time and effort to choose your name for you, your first name, the name you will be known as for the rest of your life. Why then does a person change it when becoming a monarch?
If it's to honour another previous monarch, or relation, then surely your parents would have thought about honouring them when picking your name originally. It's not like a name will ever truly affect the way you reign, so why change it? It's kind of like by choosing to honour another member, you dishonour your own parents choices, to me anyway.

Also; I think King Albert would have been a lovely regal name, seeing as that's the name his parents gave him.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Maybe because they want to. If Charles wants to be Charles III or George VII, that's entirely his right. Or maybe he can call himself King Wing-Ting-Walla-Walla-Bing-Bang and scrap all four of his names altogether. It doesn't really matter, does it? What he chooses to call himself as King has no bearing on how good/bad of a job he'll do, or what people will think of him.

 

[Lumutqueen]

What he chooses to call himself as King has no bearing on how good/bad of a job he'll do, or what people will think of him.

Exactly! So why bother choosing a new name as King?

 

[Sister Morphine]

Exactly! So why bother choosing a new name as King?

To repeat myself:

Maybe because they want to.

 

[Madame Royale]

It doesn't really matter, does it?

Of course it matters.

The name of an identified figurehead at the highest level of societal representation both nationally and internationally is quite important. Keeping in mind that the monarch's position is one which should instill a sense of continuity. Theres nothing consistent about being known as Charles for however long he remains Prince of Wales then only to be officially known as whatever other name that should please him when he succeeds. It's nonsensical.

What's in a name? Everything it would seem, and then again nothing. I'm sure it does not not change the way a person functions in their capacity as monarch, but in terms of social recognition and for history's sake, the regnal name is an important brand. It becomes a symbol of a sovereign's reign by which the institution of monarchy is referred to during and after that particular monarch's lifetime.

Thus it is in itself, a legacy.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I wonder if this is the kind of thing one discusses with one's parent, or if the decision is made solo? With whom would you seek advice on this?

 

[Mariel]

I too like the idea of a King David, because of the Scottish connection to King David I, who was an influential king in spreading the type of government brought in by his mother Queen Margaret. But I don't see it as a name for Charles, who will always be Charles to us. It would be a great name for a son of William, but one could go batty trying to think what names the Cambridges would like. We can start that some other thread!
Like the Welshman here, I think back to the cruelties of Edward I against Scotland. He destroyed revered monasteries in Scotland as revenge for any nationalistic fervor. He was among the most fierce in putting down others.
Another little used Scottish traditional regnal name is Robert, but again, that might be something for the Cambridges to consider.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

IMO, I think many people throughout the realms would bust out their best 'side eye' if the Prince of Wales chose a regnal name other than King Charles III.