King Charles and Queen Camilla

[Roslyn]

He's been Charles for nearly 60 years, and that's who he is. That's the name his parents gave him, and that's the name by which he is known and should be known as King. The idea he might inherit "bad luck" by using it is just plain silly, IMO.

 

[User0501]

He's been Charles for nearly 60 years, and that's who he is. That's the name his parents gave him, and that's the name by which he is known and should be known as King. The idea he might inherit "bad luck" by using it is just plain silly, IMO.

Elizabeth II's father was known as HRH Prince Albert of York but upon HRH's accension to the British throne in 1936 he took the name of George VI as the continuation of his father,George V.George VI was known as Albert for 41 years before he inherited the throne from his brother,Edward VIII.Same goes to the late Queen Victoria who was born Alexandrina Victoria while Edward VIII was referred to as Prince David.So Britons' should be accustommed to George VII later.I meant bad image not bad luck in my previous post.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Why would the name Charles present a bad image? We know who he is and he'll be Charles III, not Charles I or Charles II so I don't see quite what the problem would be.

 

[User0501]

Why would the name Charles present a bad image? We know who he is and he'll be Charles III, not Charles I or Charles II so I don't see quite what the problem would be.

That was HRH's opinion that was conveyed to his aides.You have to ask HRH himself.

 

[BeatrixFan]

And I imagine you've asked him yourself? How do you know that that was his opinion conveyed to his aides? These things are hearsay and can't be taken as fact.

 

[Elspeth]

Is there some verified published source for this alleged preference?

 

[lord_rankin]

I have read many articles in the UK press that short change Charles, believing when he ascends to the throne countries in the Commonwealth which still acknowledge the Queen as their head of state may not continue the practice once Charles is king. I don't think that will be the case especially now, he seems more adjusted to his role and happier than I can remember. I am not sure what basis the press has for such a view.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have read many articles in the UK press that short change Charles, believing when he ascends to the throne countries in the Commonwealth which still acknowledge the Queen as their head of state may not continue the practice once Charles is king. I don't think that will be the case especially now, he seems more adjusted to his role and happier than I can remember. I am not sure what basis the press has for such a view.

One basis would be the fact that Australia has already had a referendum on becoming a republic.

We are due to have a federal election within the next 18 moments. If the current opposition wins that election (and that is a very real possibility) we will probably have another referendum within a year or so. The Labour party will get the question right so that the majority of Australians, who when asked if they won't to be a republic indicate Yes (currently about 70% of the population). In that case Australia will be a republic within the next three or so years.

Many Australians admire the Queen but the majority want an Australian to be our Head of State.

It has nothing to do with her as an individual, or Charles, or William as individuals. It is that they want an Australian to be Head of State. I work with about 78 other people most of whom admire the Queen but all of whom would vote for a republic.

 

[Elspeth]

Chrissy, do you think they'd wait until the end of the present reign to actually become a republic or do it as soon as they can after getting a favourable vote? Assuming the Queen lives another five years or more, of course.

 

[MARG]

Aussies and Kiwis are nothing if not pragmatists. The current crop of wannabe El Presidente/Premier's is hardly inspiring on either side of the Tasman.

Having a head of state historically linked but geopgraphically distant has a lot to recommend it.

For the Republican movement that is the biggest hurdle to get over. Not to mention the fact that they would cost an awful lot more than our currnet heads of state.

 

[Roslyn]

This is a speech given by our shadow Attorney-General to the Australian Republican Movement last November:

http://www.alp.org.au/media/1105/speag230.php

You'll note that a three stage process is envisaged and I think the stages are intended to be a couple of years apart. Even if Labor wins the next election, it is likely to be a slow process.

Another insight into Australian Labor Party thinking, and more particularly that of the shadow Attorney-General:

http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/speeches&articles/spa_roxon03jun2006.htm

This newsletter from the Australian Republican Movement's web page explains, under the heading "Queen's Birthday Weekend", why they want to act before the end of the Queen's reign:

http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/enewsletter/jul2006/jul2006.htm

 

[Iluvbertie]

Chrissy, do you think they'd wait until the end of the present reign to actually become a republic or do it as soon as they can after getting a favourable vote? Assuming the Queen lives another five years or more, of course.

As the intention in 1999 was for the republic to come at the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Federation in 2001 I don't think that the life of the present queen's life will make any difference.

As the support for being a republic is quite large it is getting the model acceptable to the Australian people that is the issue.

If they do that then I suspect that the republic could be within months, or at most a year, of the positive vote.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

From my point of view I think Prince Charles would do better to be known as King George VII rather than his current moniker. History didn't particularly prove keen to Charles I and Charles II, I wouldn't want him to inherit any bad luck using the appellation of Charles III. But then it might be hard for people to adjust to knowing him as George rather than Charles. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

There already has been (de jure) a Charles III. of Great Britain, even though he failed to regain his rightful throne when he lost the battle of Culloden... Prince Charles Edward Louis Philip Casimir Stuart (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie) was the firstborn son of the only son of king James II. of Great-Britain and would have been directly in line for the throne if parliament had not decided that his father's catholic faith was a danger to the realm and had taken away this Stuart's line's birthright.

Alas, today there are no real Stuart claiments to the British throne anymore, as this line would go via a princess who had renounced her inheritage rights on marrying into the French Royal family. So why should their claim be better than that of the line of princess Elizabeth Stuart and her daughter, the electress Sophia of Hanover?

As the current Prince Charles has a degree in history and is very interested in all matters of religion and faith, I, for one, could well understand why he would not take on the name of a Stuart prince who was robbed of his birthright due to his catholic religion. It's bad enough that catholics and potential heirs with catholic spouses are barred from the succession, but taking on the name of Charles III. would make matters even worth.

And remember how his own mother dealt with the history of her family: even though there never was a queen Elizabeth I. of the United Kingdom, only the great queen Elizabeth I of England (!), she chose the name Elizabeth II. for herself. I really can't imagine that Prince Charles is less respectful.

 

[User0501]

He's been Charles for nearly 60 years, and that's who he is. That's the name his parents gave him, and that's the name by which he is known and should be known as King. The idea he might inherit "bad luck" by using it is just plain silly, IMO.

Attached is an article from the Malaysian newspaper,News Straits Times (NST) a few months back regarding Prince Charles's preference of being known as King George VII once he assumes the British throne in the future.The orginal size of the article was 640 KB but I made it smaller in order to be attached here as the maximum limit to attach a jpeg file is only 200 KB.I edited its brightness and contrast,I hope it could be read.

 

[BeatrixFan]

There's been several articles like that srivishnu but no word from Clarence House or Buckingham Palace, or Prince Charles for that matter. The writing is a little small so if it contains a statement by Charles stating his preference then I'll gladly accept it but at the moment, I'm afraid there isn't concrete evidence of a preference on regnal name.

 

[hayz64]

I really hope he keeps the name Charles and i haven't heard anything "official"regarding the matter,so until i do i will continue to believe he will accede to the throne as King Charles lll.

 

[Skydragon]

Attached is an article from the Malaysian newspaper,News Straits Times (NST) a few months back regarding Prince Charles's preference of being known as King George VII once he assumes the British throne in the future.

Oh No, not the one or two un-named trusted friends again.

 

[qui mal y pense]

I think it is in extreme bad taste for charles or his office to make any statements about what his name will or won't be when and if he becomes king- especially in this celebratory year for the Queen and especially given everyone's acceptance of Camilla. I jus t don't get why the press would start this up now either?!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Neither Charles or his spokesmen and women have made any statements. The only comment I think I've ever seen is "We can't comment on that" and I believe that was the answer used when Gyles Brandreth asked them for his book.

 

[qui mal y pense]

glad to hear it! That really had me steaming!

 

[lord_rankin]

Speaking of titles and monikers, I don't think that Camilla should have to be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends to the throne. She is his wife and should be given the title of Queen. I am sure as time goes on the people who oppose this will slowly change their minds. I hope

 

[Avalon]

As it has been previously explained, Camilla will be Queen, once Prince Charles becomes King. As the Clarence House said in a statement, The Duchess has expresses wish to be known as Princess Consort.
I agree with you though that Camilla must not only have the title of the Queen but also be known as one.

 

[hayz64]

Well Camilla will be Queen and the British public should treat her like one and respect her when the time eventually comes.

 

[lord_rankin]

As it has been previously explained, Camilla will be Queen, once Prince Charles becomes Queen. As the Clarence House said in a statement, The Duchess has expresses wish to be known as Princess Consort.
I agree with you though that Camilla must not only have the title of the Queen but also be known as one.

don't you mean once Prince Charles becomes King?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well Camilla will be Queen and the British public should treat her like one and respect her when the time eventually comes.

She is his wife and she is not a second-class human being. The idea that she should be deprived of what she is lawfully entitled to is IMHO an affront against the laws that rule Royal life, laws that come from the Parliament aka the people's representatives and thus should be accepted as the will of the majority of the people of Great Britain. I understand that the idea of a queen Camilla does not sit well with all the people but that's how life in a democracy is like: the representatives of the majority of the people decide what is the law and all have to abide by it. Nobody will be forced to curtsey to queen Camilla and nobody will have to call her "Her Majesty" if he or she does not want to do it. But the law is the law and according to that, Camilla will be queen as the wife of the king.

 

[hayz64]

Exactly!People need to get over themselves...Camilla WILL be Queen!

 

[BeatrixFan]

She'll be Queen. Over my cold dead corpse will she be downgraded to a Princess Consort.

 

[Incas]

Queen Camilla has a nicer ring than Princess Camilla.

 

[Toledo]

I agree, we can easily live with a Queen Camilla and with time people will get used to it. Maybe faster than what we think. I mean, as a royal Consort she has achieved in short time an acceptance from the public I've never imagined. And her discretion in public is impecable. Not a single controversy so far despite the tabloids' huntfor a scandal. And I don't recall seen Prince Charles so relaxed except when he has her around. She seems to be a calming presence in his life.
So, for me, Queen Camilla is fine enough.

But, what is this thing on Charles wanting to change his name? I can expect that if he was running for a Papal office at the Vatican (that implies a new life) but we all come to known him as Charles, plain and simple Prince Charles. If the reason behind this is the thought of the name associated with a bad moment in British History, well then, he could be that new King Charles to give a positive spin to the name. When his parents choose his name they probably expected him to use it as King. No doubt the then Princess Elizabeth had many names to select from but this current name probably went through a lot of drafts before choosing Charles for the next royal heir.

 

[User0501]

Speaking of titles and monikers, I don't think that Camilla should have to be known as Princess Consort when Charles ascends to the throne. She is his wife and should be given the title of Queen. I am sure as time goes on the people who oppose this will slowly change their minds. I hope

I think Camilla should be known only as Princess Consort once Prince Charles accedes to the throne as she is the second wife.Although the late Princess Diana divorced Prince Charles and has passed away as well as behaved badly,she is Prince Charles's first wife and the mother of the future King of United Kingdom,so the title queen should be reserved for Diana only rather than Camilla.Moreover,Camilla was given the title Duchess of Cornwall upon her marriage to Prince Charles last year instead of Princess of Wales as there should only be one Princess of Wales.In addition,the royal family knows that Camilla did not give birth to the heir of the British throne so they decided the title of duchess would do for her rather than a higher title,the princess.Even Camilla has expressed her wish to be known only as the Princess Consort as she is aware of her situation as the second wife of Prince Charles.In royalties,first wives are more important,legal and has more power / value than the second wives.For an example,in the case of HM Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei.