The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 09-07-2009, 04:54 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Victoria had always gone as Victoria, though. Her parents had Alexandrina imposed on them IIRC, and they never really used it.

She was called 'Drina' for quite some time so there was certainly a time when she wasn't referred to, even privately as Victoria.

She chose to use a name other than her given first name - that was my point, regardless of what she, or the others were called in private, 50% of the last 6 monarchs have opted to use a regnal name other than the name they were baptised.

By your calculations I can make a better statistical analysis as only Victoria has actually reigned using the name by which she was known in the family at the time of her accession.

Edward VII - was Bertie
George V - was Georgie
Edward VIII - was David
George VI - was Bertie
Elizabeth II - was Lilibet

There is no reason why they couldn't have ruled using these names but they didn't, they chose their regnal name and Charles will also get the chance to make that same decision.

He may stick with Charles. He may decide on George or Philip or Arthur or Zonko for that matter - yes I am being frivolous with that last one but the point is - it is his decision and his alone.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-07-2009, 05:13 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,088
I'm sorry I have to disagree. Queen Lilibet, King Bertie. Hardly gives an era of presence and importance does it. The could not have reigned under those names if they wished to be taken at all seriously. But I agree it is Charles' choice, but I do believe he will stick with Charles.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-12-2009, 06:47 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 34
I like the idea of Charles honoring his grandfather, or more to his way of thinking, the husband of his beloved grandmother, by taking the title King George VII.
The problem would come up when people started to look back at the previous George's and they hit good old, George IV. The potential for Caroline/Diana comparisons to be made probably rules out George VII, IMHO.
Let's be honest, Charles isn't going to be on the throne for long, so whatever name he chooses will only reign briefly.
More likely the British will be proclaiming Long Live William IV or Henry IX.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-13-2009, 02:43 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,376
I always love it when people say Charles won't rule for long when he has the long-lived genes of his parents in him and he has looked after himself health-wise all his life.

I can easily see him reigning for 20 years or more i.e. no matter how old his mother is when she passes that he lives to be at least that old.

William and Harry have been far less healthy in their lifestyle and I see them, like many of their generation, not living as long as their father will.

Just my opinion but I do see Charles living well into his 90s meaning a reign of 20 or so years is possible. I don't regard that as a short reign. His grandfather's reign was 15 years and that isn't regarded as all that short and Charles will, I feel sure, unless his mother lives to 110 or so, make 15 years on the basis that he is 22.5 years younger than his mother and therefore should live at least to the same age as her, and considering his father is still going strong (sort of) there is no reason to think that he mightn't even pass his mother's age as he has taken just as good care of his health as she has.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:27 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 34
I was just basing the idea that Charles won't rule for long because the Windsor men haven't been known for their longevity. Also, when the last 2 50-year + reigns ended, there's been a "rapid" turnover in the next few reigns. George III was followed by George IV and William IV in rapid succession (so that actually William will be William V if/when he succeeds to the throne, contrary to my post yesterday) and then Victoria's heir Edward VII was on the throne less than a decade.
George VI's reign is considered by many to be short, or at least shorter than it should have been, due to his premature death.
After Elizabeth II's reign, Charles' is going to be seen as shortsimply due to the length of his predecessor's time on the throne.
I don't see Charles living into his 90's just because I think the stresses of the crown are difficult for someone coming to the job later in life. Elizabeth II has, in a way, grown up in the job. Charles will be coming to it as an old man.
I don't think any of us really understands the physical toll the crown takes on a person. I can't believe it's as difficult as the PM's job, but it isn't a walk in the park, either.
The idea that William and Harry aren't as healthy as Charles is interesting. I've read reports in the press that health experts are predicting that the current 20 - 30 something generation will be the first in history to have a shorter life expectancy than it's parents' generation.
So long live "Charles' grandchild" the "somewhere between 1 and 9"!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-13-2009, 04:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,376
You have raised the very reason why I think Charles will live a long life - those that died after short reigns weren't living healthy lifestyles. They were heavy drinkers and/or smokers e.g. Edward VII lived to 68.5 but smoked 20+ cigarettes a day, multiple cigars, drank and ate to excess whereas Charles is a virtual teetollar, has never really smoked (I say never really as I assume that he might have tried one or two as a teenager), eats enough to keep body and soul together and exercises. His father is 88 and he has those genes. He has male ancestors who also made it into their 80s e.g. Christian IX of Denmark, a two times ancestor and he has George I of the Hellenes in his genes who also was into his 70s and we don't know how long he might have lived due to being assassinated. In other words those male ancestors who have taken care of their health have lived into their 80s or probably would have except for assassins and I see no reason why Charles won't live that long or longer.

William and Harry are heavier drinkers than Charles ever was and both have also been smokers.

I do see Charles as having a longer reign than George IV, William IV and Edward VII and even possibly his grandfather, due to his better health regime, the better medical support we have today and also the fact that he is the best prepared King in history. An argument could be made for George IV of course as he was virtually King from 1810 meaning that he effectively did the job of king for 20 years not 10.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-13-2009, 08:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: illinois, United States
Posts: 105
I have read that the then Duke and Duchess of York wanted to name Princess Margaret, Anne, because they thought Anne of Youk sounded nice. However, Edward VIII didn't like the name so she became Margaret Rose.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-13-2009, 09:55 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by lallyvee View Post
I have read that the then Duke and Duchess of York wanted to name Princess Margaret, Anne, because they thought Anne of Youk sounded nice. However, Edward VIII didn't like the name so she became Margaret Rose.
I think it was grandfather George V who was opposed to Anne of York.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-13-2009, 11:08 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: illinois, United States
Posts: 105
Your right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-21-2009, 02:40 AM
Opal's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Coastal, Ireland
Posts: 2,524
I don't understand this whole name-change thing. Prince Charles has been Charles for 60 years. Why would anyone want to change their name after using it for so long? It's part of their identity. Can you imagine the confusion it would cause in the media not to mention boards like this if he started going by a different name all of a sudden? I hope he keeps his name. It's a nice regal sounding name and he's the only one amongst the current monarchies using that name. So it's distinctive.
Lilibet and Bertie were nicknames mostly used within the family so that was different.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-12-2010, 10:30 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nové Zámky, Slovakia
Posts: 1
This topic has been most interesting to read, thanks for all the contributions :) Are there any books that deal with naming customs/traditions of the royal family in depth? After reading through the posts i started thinking of making it the topic of my bachelor thesis on onomastics. It is all very interesting but I haven't been able to find any books/documents that deal with this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-16-2011, 02:14 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cambridge, Canada
Posts: 1
Names and numbers

It is true that numbering of monarchs began anew with William the Conqueror. I have wondered why the same did not happen in 1603 with the accession of James VI of Scotland uniting of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland under one monarchy. Scottish coins drop the number and at least one historian has claimed that James believed the numbering would start all over again. It was not until the accession of William and Mary 86 years later that the numbers would have been noticeably different. William of Orange was William III of England, William II of Scotland and William I of Great Britain. Mary was the second of that name of both England and Scotland, but the first of Great Britain.
It seems to me that the numbering should have re-started with James VI and I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-16-2011, 02:33 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by rchat View Post
I don't understand this whole name-change thing. Prince Charles has been Charles for 60 years. Why would anyone want to change their name after using it for so long? It's part of their identity. Can you imagine the confusion it would cause in the media not to mention boards like this if he started going by a different name all of a sudden? I hope he keeps his name. It's a nice regal sounding name and he's the only one amongst the current monarchies using that name. So it's distinctive.
Lilibet and Bertie were nicknames mostly used within the family so that was different.
I expect he'll keep Charles.
Albert wasn't really a "King" name, just Victoria's husband. Perhaps Edward VI thought it wasn't really English?

As for John, I understand that William was Diana's choice for her son; Charles favored Arthur. She won.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-16-2011, 02:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 1,389
I read somewhere that he doesn't really like his regnal name to be Charles because of the not so pleasant destinies of CharlesI & II.
Charles I was executed and Charles II had no legitimate children, but acknowledged a dozen by seven mistresses. He also lived in exile..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-16-2011, 06:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte_Aster View Post
I read somewhere that he doesn't really like his regnal name to be Charles because of the not so pleasant destinies of CharlesI & II.
Charles I was executed and Charles II had no legitimate children, but acknowledged a dozen by seven mistresses. He also lived in exile..

But just about every king's name has negative aspects!
George III went mad, for example.
Henry IV had a horrible skin disease, possibly even leprosy.
Edward II was imprisoned and possibly murdered.
So was Richard II.
William II was killed by an arrow (possibly murdered).

If you rule out every name as unlucky, what's left?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-23-2011, 06:25 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel
But just about every king's name has negative aspects!
True but wasn't Charles I the one who was beheaded by his people because of the English people threw him off the throne? Maybe Charles doesn't want to be associated in any way
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-23-2011, 10:13 PM
KPWillie's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ

True but wasn't Charles I the one who was beheaded by his people because of the English people threw him off the throne? Maybe Charles doesn't want to be associated in any way
Yes I have read that Charles does not like the title King Charles because that ... but Heaven knows he has plenty of other names to choose from, like Phillip, Arthur, and George to name a few.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-24-2011, 09:25 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
But just about every king's name has negative aspects!
George III went mad, for example.
Henry IV had a horrible skin disease, possibly even leprosy.
Edward II was imprisoned and possibly murdered.
So was Richard II.
William II was killed by an arrow (possibly murdered).

If you rule out every name as unlucky, what's left?
King Algernon?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-25-2011, 11:04 PM
abcdxyz's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Columbus, Ohio, United States
Posts: 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
Albert wasn't really a "King" name, just Victoria's husband. Perhaps Edward VI thought it wasn't really English?
I suspect that Victoria expected EVERY British prince to carry the name Albert from her children forward into infinity (all her sons had Albert as one of their given names), and I am certain that she expected Bertie to reign as Albert I.

I believe that he chose to reign as Edward partly to thwart her ambitions in that direction, and because, frankly, he hadn't had a really great relationship with his father.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-26-2011, 07:10 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdxyz View Post
I suspect that Victoria expected EVERY British prince to carry the name Albert from her children forward into infinity (all her sons had Albert as one of their given names), and I am certain that she expected Bertie to reign as Albert I.

I believe that he chose to reign as Edward partly to thwart her ambitions in that direction, and because, frankly, he hadn't had a really great relationship with his father.
Victoria and Albert definitely had the plan to have the name Albert and Victoria in the name of all their direct descendants. I have never seen any mention, however, that either one of them thoughy Edward would rule as Albert when King. And from what I understand, Edward didn't have a great relationship with his father because they had two different schools of thought (one carefree and the other serious) in how they lived. I have never heard that they disliked each other or that Albert was a bad father.

In fact, when Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (the present Queen) was born, I believe that the Duke and Duches of York made note (in a letter to the King asking/telling of the name) that the name Victoria wasn't present in the list of names. Apparently they were conscious of the fact that the name had been present in the past. The King replied that it didn't matter. So either 1) at the time of her birth didn't think that Elizabeth would be Queen (i.e. Edward, Prince of Wales still had time to marry and produce a heir) or 2) that it was no longer necessary to include the name Victoria in the families "name" list.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchs, styles and titles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]