Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Saragli]

Diana does always get involved somehow. Lets try to get back on track. What name do you think Charles will use when he becomes King. Can we open up a poll or something between his four names, Charles Philip Arthur George. I have always though Charles was gonna become George VI, but Elizabeth II ended the georgain dynasty so I guess its a free for all. I know he wont use Arthur for obvious reasons. If he used Philip would he be Philip the First.

 

[wymanda]

Diana does always get involved somehow. Lets try to get back on track. What name do you think Charles will use when he becomes King. Can we open up a poll or something between his four names, Charles Philip Arthur George. I have always though Charles was gonna become George VI, but Elizabeth II ended the georgain dynasty so I guess its a free for all. I know he wont use Arthur for obvious reasons. If he used Philip would he be Philip the First.

I actually think that there is a strong chance that he will choose to be George VII in honour of his grandfather.

 

[wymanda]

The only exception was the marriage of Wallis Simpson to HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor. George VI issued letters patent denying Wallis the rank of Royal Highness and princess of the UK. As a result, she was styled "Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor" and held a lesser rank than the Duke, who remained a Royal Highness.

and it is questionable if this was actually legal. British law does not allow for a morganatic marriage, a wife automatically shares her husbands rank & titles. I believe that the Duke argued this point for years but his brother, no doubt abetted by the Queen Mum, refused to listen. I do often wonder why the Duke did not take the matter to the courts and prove it to be unconstitutional. I know that the Duchess was always referred to as Her Royal Highness in her own home and amongst their friends.

 

[Warren]

What name do you think Charles will use when he becomes King. Can we open up a poll?

I'm going to be boring and conservative and suggest Charles will one day reign as King Charles III. There's no reason to change his name, no need to give the impression of "continuity" as his mother's reign will have been so long, and his given names are not preceded by "Albert".

Another reason to stay with Charles: the C & C monogram should look very stylish!

As for a poll, we would have to keep it open for a very long time before we knew the real outcome. Actually I'm surprised some of our more enthusiastic members haven't called for a poll on the name of William's firstborn.

W

 

[Margrethe II]

I too believe Charles shall (eventually) reign under the name, Charles III. To be honest I quite like it

"MII"

 

[branchg]

I see no reason why Charles would not be known as Charles III. Honoring his grandfather as George VII doesn't really make sense as the Duke of York assumed the name to present continuity with his father's reign after the shock of the Abdication.

 

[branchg]

and it is questionable if this was actually legal. British law does not allow for a morganatic marriage, a wife automatically shares her husbands rank & titles. I believe that the Duke argued this point for years but his brother, no doubt abetted by the Queen Mum, refused to listen. I do often wonder why the Duke did not take the matter to the courts and prove it to be unconstitutional. I know that the Duchess was always referred to as Her Royal Highness in her own home and amongst their friends.

The problem was the Government approved the issuance of the letters patent, despite the lack of basis in law, and the right of the Crown to grant or withhold rank and title as fount of honour. Technically, George VI had the right to determine the style and title of any member of the royal family as Sovereign.

 

[Warren]

George VI had the right to determine the style and title of any member of the royal family as Sovereign.

And therefore not subject to any court challenge?

 

[ysbel]

Actually I think Charles II was a great king so Charles III sounds fine with me.

 

[branchg]

And therefore not subject to any court challenge?

The Sovereign is above the law and letters patent are final. Once advised by the Prime Minister, the King's decision could not be challenged in the courts.

 

[ysbel]

Another reason to stay with Charles: the C & C monogram should look very stylish!

Ah, how true, Warren! I always like the monogram of William and Mary - do the British royals have monograms still?

Since most of us agree that Charles will become King if he outlives his mother, what do you think will happen when he assumes the throne? His accession will probably be announced within a day or two but after that?

 

[Warren]

What do you think will happen when he assumes the throne? His accession will probably be announced within a day or two but after that?

I think the accession proclamation is done pretty quickly; the Heralds at Arms in their fabulous tunics make the announcement from, I think, St James Palace in a little piece of ancient pomp and ceremony.

Morbid topic again. As well as grieving the loss of a parent the new Monarch must oversee the final preparations for the grand funeral. And in the case of Elizabeth II, I am sure it will be very grand indeed, almost Imperial. Behind the scenes there must be a flurry of activity planning the logistics, plus dealing with the "guest list", Orders of Precedence, etc etc. Let alone the internal turnover of senior staff and courtiers. Some things would be left to later, but others would have to be decided pretty quickly. And then comes the Coronation planning.
.

 

[Toledo]

Queen E II funeral will be the most viewed in the planet since Diana's because her life has covered decades of changes in world history. But I think she will be long lived like the women in her family. Charles will be a very old man by then. It's like the story of Queen Victoria's long reign and her son waiting and waiting.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re;

According to Brian Hoey in his book, "At Home with the Queen", there is already a council in operation planning the Queen's funeral. They expect it to take place between 2010-2020.

As to the Coronation, the long robes etc of old will be gone. They have said that the Prince will be crowned in his uniform as Admiral of Fleet but I'm not sure if he'll wear the long mantle etc over that. I think it would be a great shame to change the Coronation ritual - it's tradition.

 

[ysbel]

According to Brian Hoey in his book, "At Home with the Queen", there is already a council in operation planning the Queen's funeral. They expect it to take place between 2010-2020.

As to the Coronation, the long robes etc of old will be gone. They have said that the Prince will be crowned in his uniform as Admiral of Fleet but I'm not sure if he'll wear the long mantle etc over that. I think it would be a great shame to change the Coronation ritual - it's tradition.

I agree too, BeatrixFan. I honestly don't think the coronation will remain unchanged from the 1952 ceremony.

It must be difficult to assume a new role when grieving a parent. I remember the proclamation of Margrethe II on the balcony and she looked like she could barely stand.

I know Elizabeth II put off her coronation for a year in respect to her father but she had already undertaken several royal duties by then. I think Charles may do the same thing.

 

[branchg]

That's kind of strange they are planning to eliminate the coronation robes. I wonder why?

 

[iowabelle]

Diana does always get involved somehow. Lets try to get back on track. What name do you think Charles will use when he becomes King. Can we open up a poll or something between his four names, Charles Philip Arthur George. I have always though Charles was gonna become George VI, but Elizabeth II ended the georgain dynasty so I guess its a free for all. I know he wont use Arthur for obvious reasons. If he used Philip would he be Philip the First.

Charles has said he wants to rule as George VII. It's a fitting tribute to his grandparents, especially his beloved grandmother. (Don't forget his grandfather was George VI!)

It's difficult to describe the reigns of either Charles I or Charles II as particularly auspicious.

I don't think he would ever choose Philip, given the problems with his father... and the specter of the previous Philip, husband to Queen Mary (Tudor).

 

[selrahc4]

Charles has said he wants to rule as George VII.

Has he actually said this? Or is this being attributed to him by others?

 

[ysbel]

Has he actually said this? Or is this being attributed to him by others?

I've read it in blogs and other articles by observers but none really close to the Royal Family.

Charles II saved the British monarchy. If he had messed up, they would have had no reason not to wipe the institution away.

 

[iowabelle]

Has he actually said this? Or is this being attributed to him by others?

I haven't seen anything with quote marks, but articles like "the Prince of Wales has stated that he intends to take the name of George VII". I just checked on the net and there was apparently an article in The Sunday Times, about Feb. 15, 2000, to that effect. And it's been mentioned many times.

I think he'll do it because of his grandmother.

 

[ysbel]

Thanks iowabelle. I think it would be very silly if he does though even if its for his grandmother. It would look like he's trying to create a new image when the world already knows him as Charles.

JMHO, which I know doesn't mean much to those who count, I think he's better off with Charles III and living with his past both the triumphs and the mistakes.

 

[branchg]

Charles has said he wants to rule as George VII. It's a fitting tribute to his grandparents, especially his beloved grandmother. (Don't forget his grandfather was George VI!)

It's difficult to describe the reigns of either Charles I or Charles II as particularly auspicious.

I don't think he would ever choose Philip, given the problems with his father... and the specter of the previous Philip, husband to Queen Mary (Tudor).

Charles has never been quoted as saying he would reign as George VII. People close to his Household have said this, but we don't know if that's true or not.

If he wants to pay tribute to his grandfather, then he should reign as King Albert I. George VI was simply a gesture to signal continuity with his father's values and reign after the damage to the monarchy by the Duke of Windsor.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

and reign after the damage to the monarchy by the Duke of Windsor.

That is if you count it to be damage. I think he showed that Royals are human beings too and fall in love with the same passion and devotion as commoners do.
Maybe Charles should become Edward IX as that could apply to him.

 

[Saragli]

Prince Charles could never become King Albert for the same reason his grandfather did not. Queen Victoria wrote in her will or something that she wishes no future monarch take the name of her beloved husband or after herself. So there will never be another Queen Victoria. I think sticking with Charles would be a very english thing to do. But, I actually really like George and would want him to be George VII. George is more kingly to me and it would follow tradition. There are many parallels between Q Victore and P Edward and Q Elizabeth and P Charles. Both Queens are highly respectable and both over saw major changes in their empires. They became monarchs young and lived for a long time. Their sons were both scandalous prince of wales. But, Prince Edward became a popular King so I have great hope for Charles.

 

[caroline mathilda]

I too hope Charles will reign as Charles III. To modern eyes and ears it would seem a bit archaic to be known by your Christian name for most of your life and then chuk it to become "somebody else."

I know Popes do this, but I trust that Prince Charles would rather the monarchy be more relevant, modern, and simplified and thus would not want to stand "behind" a ceremonial name.

Yet not only does he admire his grandfathaer George VI, but he is an avid fan of GeorgeIII. Thus we might indeed see a George VII.

Caroline Mathilda

 

[tiaraprin]

tiaraprin, wasn't it you who said the discussion of which crown prince would succeed first was morbid because it was speculating on which monarch was going to die first?

How is it different when you have a ferverent wish that Charles die before he has a chance to acceed the throne? He may well die before his mother but praying and wishing that he die before her is like putting a death wish on him. That's morbid.

It wasn't me.

 

[tiaraprin]

If I had my way, William would never be King. His mother was nothing but a damaging force to the Monarchy - if he follows her example and not his grandmothers then the Monarchy will become a laughing stock and will crumble.

I'd much prefer to see Queen Beatrice after King Charles but unless William and Harry are killed, illegitimate or marry catholics - it aint gonna happen.

And no, I'm not wishing them dead, insinuating that they are illegitimate or are set up with catholics!

If it were not for Diana, the Monarchy would not have woken up to the fact of how old fashioned and stuffy it was. It needed a breath of fresh air and Diana provided it. She also showed she cared about people. Despite her personal errors, Diana was a great attribute to the Monarchy in many ways and William will continue that caring tradition.

To quote Christopher Wilson from The Windsor Knot:

Diana was the brightest shining star in The British Royal Family in nearly 500 years. In her time as princess she brought luster, freshness, and a new sense of purpose to a tired and rudderless institution. . .Diana was able to use the fascination people retain for credible royalty to draw attention to other matters. . .Her celebrity was a positive force for good--that much cannot be denied, despite the revisionist theories which have been floated (mostly by Prince Charles' camp) since her death in 1997. She gave a new zest and a new meaning to royalty. (pp 8)

 

[branchg]

I too hope Charles will reign as Charles III. To modern eyes and ears it would seem a bit archaic to be known by your Christian name for most of your life and then chuk it to become "somebody else."

I agree. I don't see any reason why he would not be Charles III. This so-called "tribute" to his grandfather doesn't make any sense to me. His name was Albert, not George.

 

[ysbel]

It wasn't me.

My apologies, tiaraprin. I thought in the thread that someone else had said it and you agreed. When I looked back I found I was mistaken.

 

[ysbel]

I agree. I don't see any reason why he would not be Charles III. This so-called "tribute" to his grandfather doesn't make any sense to me. His name was Albert, not George.

Plus Charles says he doesn't even remember his grandfather. It would be different if they were close when he was a child.