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
 
  #681  
Old 08-02-2011, 10:44 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
When I think of the other Charles I & II, I think of centuries ago and I don't associate Prince Charles with them or their activities. Charles is not a common name for a monarch. George, Edward are. If he wanted to be different, he would keep his name. Will be interesting in the future what name he picks. When is this actually done? Right before he is coronated?

It is done the day his mother dies at his Accession Council.

His coronation, when he will be actually crowned, won't take place for about a year after his accession but he will already have been King xxxx for some time by then.

On the day the Queen dies (or early the next day if she dies late in the day) an Accession Council will be held at which he will take the oath, announce his regal name and confirm the PM in his office. The present reign began with two of these as the first was done by proxy and the second was done with the Queen actually present.

After that will be the formal proclamation of the new monarch and then about a year later - after the emotions of the death of the parent have disappated - the coronation will occur with the formal crowning of the new monarch by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 08-02-2011, 10:54 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

I believe Queen Victoria's name at birth was Alexandrina Victoria and she chose Victoria as her name..
It was her name but she was called Victoria from birth, that name was not choosen just when she became Queen....
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 08-02-2011, 11:09 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
George is closer in association with Charles than Charles I*II. The Charles' were the Stuarts and the George's were the Hanovers which I think Charles and his mother are closer to. Plus it seems that the George's have had better luck than the Charles'. He has probably already gone over this and has known what his regnal name is going to be for some time.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 08-02-2011, 11:34 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ View Post
It was her name but she was called Victoria from birth, that name was not choosen just when she became Queen....
I think I read that some people called her "Drina" as a nickname but my point was the King or Queen chooses the name he or she wishes to be known as and it can be completely different from the way he or she had formally been known. In fact, I believe the first proclamation or some such document used Queen Alexandrina Victoria and Queen Victoria made it clear that it was incorrect to address her as such or to sign her name that way. It was never repeated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 08-02-2011, 11:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
I think I read that some people called her "Drina" as a nickname but my point was the King or Queen chooses the name he or she wishes to be known as and it can be completely different from the way he or she had formally been known. In fact, I believe the first proclamation or some such document used Queen Alexandrina Victoria and Queen Victoria made it clear that it was incorrect to address her as such or to sign her name that way. It was never repeated.
I've read the same regarding the nickname. Was there a particular reason she chose to go with Victoria, (other than personal preference)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 08-02-2011, 11:43 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Victoria was known by her second name for most of her life, but I recall reading that when it became clear that she would be Queen some higher ups tried to get her to change her name somehow so it would sound more English and she refused. It's not like either of her names was English sounding to begin with and she could only go by Alexandrina or Victoria.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 08-03-2011, 12:24 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
I've read the same regarding the nickname. Was there a particular reason she chose to go with Victoria, (other than personal preference)?

I suppose beccause that had always been the name she had used.

She had had 'drina' as a very little girl but from about 4 or 5 onwards was known only as Victoria so it made sense to stick with that name.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 08-03-2011, 08:10 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,342
Since people have known Charles as Prince Charles for all of his life, it would be hard to get used to another name if he decided to use another name which he's crowned King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 08-03-2011, 09:01 PM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
I just hope HM Queen Elizabeth II has an even longer life than her much-loved mother.
Charles has too many (IMO) strange ideas about his Coronation and supposedly wants it to be partly at Westminster Hall and partly at Westminster Abbey as he wants to be "defender of faith" and recognise the UK as more multicultural. And the Camilla issue won't go away, either. How can a woman with a living husband be anointed Queen by the head of a Church which would not marry them, although it did bless the marriage. It seems to me there will be many questions raised by the Anglican Establishment if Camilla is anointed Queen. If she just takes the title, I don't think there would be as much concern.

From my personal point of view, I'd have loathed seeing Camilla as Charles' Queen Consort if Diana were still alive. Since the Princess rests in peace and can not be hurt anymore, it really doesn't matter to me, although I'd be curious to know the viewpoint of Princes William and Harry. I won't deny that I will never become a Camilla supporter, but neither do I wish her ill and I do recognise the assets she has brought to the BRF and particularly to Charles. (On a side note, I find the Diana admirers who post here to be much more kind about Camilla than the Camilla brigade is about Diana.)

My guess is he will be crowned as King Charles III, but it's just possible he will honour his beloved Granny, QEQM, by taking his Grandfather's name. The PoW is a sentimental man in some ways and it would not surprise me overmuch to see him as George VII.

Many of the Commonwealth countries, particularly Canada and Australia, have said they will take Charles' accession to the Throne as the time they will remove the Sovereign of the UK and Head of the Commonwealth (Head of the Commonwealth is not automatically Charles' after the Queen's death.) as their head of state. In Australia, some politicians directly connect this with the Charles/Diana debacle. I have heard similar stories about Canada, but not directly from Canadian politicians. I do believe William would have a greater chance of remaining as Head of State of both Australia and Canada. Nevertheless, I realise this is a hereditary monarchy and one can't remove Charles from his birthright and nor should he be removed unless it is 100% of his own free will (reasons such as gravely failing health, mental incompetence due to age, etc). The day the BRF allows popularity to outweigh the hereditary principle will be the day it would strike a deep blow to the entire institution of the monarchy. I can't believe it is or has ever been even under consideration, nor should it be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 08-03-2011, 09:32 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Very interesting post, Aliza. I hadn't thought about the church entanglements of the "Camilla issue." King Charles III may well have to use some kingly power to get what he wants here - and he may not feel it's useful to try and do that.

Wait and see, in 15-20 years, we hope?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 08-04-2011, 03:49 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
I am against skipping Charles for William as I think it would harm the very fabric and foundations of the Monarchy. I also don't think it would be fair to William. I don't personally care what title Camilla will carry or currently carries, for that matter. (She is the Princess of Wales, whether Diana admirers such as myself, like it or not.) I think Charles will do his best to be a good King. Whether his definition of a good King will match the UK's or the Commonwealth, if he becomes Head of the Commonwealth, is another story. We will have to wait and see. Personally, I don't think he is cut out for the job, but I'd be delighted to be wrong. In the meantime, HM The Queen is the best monarch anyone could ask for and I hope her reign will continue for years to come with HM enjoying her current good health.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 08-04-2011, 04:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
Personally, I don't think he is cut out for the job, but I'd be delighted to be wrong.

This is exactly the view held by many people in 1900 about another elderly Prince of Wales and we know how he turned out don't we???

He had done a lot less than Charles has for the good of his country but even so Charles isn't seen as up to the job - I really do wonder why?

He has worked tirelessly for his causes, he has done innumerable tours on behalf of his country and monarch, he has made many wonderful speeches etc.

If it is that modern politicians tell us that he talks to them - well that is part of his role - to know what is happening.

If it is because he late wife said so in her vitriolic tirade against the royal family - is that interview really credible evidence given the vindictive nature of the interview??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 08-04-2011, 04:56 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
The only difference between Charles and other Heads of the Church of England is that he took the time and effort to make an honest woman out of his mistress. If anything, Charles is one of the better royal men when it comes to marriage, fidelity etc. I'm sure we could all sit here and list the Kings of England who had women on the side as well as children, before and after the creation of the Church of England. Then there are the Popes who produced children and had mistresses while serving the church.
As someone who was born and raised in the US, I know first hand that just because a man is not faithful to his wife, does not mean he will be bad at his job; some of our best presidents have been cheaters.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 08-04-2011, 09:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
Sorry but I think that just because Charles will have been prepared during his life, doesn't mean he has an open mind.
Apart from organic farming etc., he is mainly a figure of fun and he is lacking in authority. Sad, but true.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 08-04-2011, 10:41 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
I used to think Charles was a figure of fun and not fit to be king, until I actully started to pay attention to him and realized he is smarter and worthy of respect for his causes and how he has not only tried to help England but the world in general. Once you get pass the headlines, he becomes quite an endearing human being. He just has the unfortunate status of being the heir to a woman who is living a very very long time. As a son he probably is happy about that, but as an heir, not so much.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 08-04-2011, 10:58 PM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,026
I think Charles will do fine as a king. He certainly has a good role model in his mother, and I'm hoping to see him carry on some of her practices. As for him being the catalyst to the dissolution of the monarchy, I think that's maybe a little harsh. Monarchy in today's world is 'of the people' and 'by the people', and I bet if the United Kingdom and Commonwealth didn't want the institution anymore, there would be a way to get rid of it. The sad part is, Charles could be doing a great job, but it'll be all about the desire of the people and the government that will be existing at the time.
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 08-05-2011, 12:08 AM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
I think he is wonderful, I look forward to seeing him being King one day.

But not just yet!!


"long live the Queen - xoxox"
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 08-05-2011, 12:44 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Really, I don't see the big issue with Charles becoming king. What is this argument that he's not cut out for the job? What qualifications, other than birth, does it require?

Politically, he will have no real power, so he cannot change or propose any government laws or policies.. all he can do is advise.. and the leaders of Parliament can either take his advice or not. He will just be a symbol of government like his mother and his grandfather before him.

I think he may change some things with regard to royal protocol, but he is traditionalist enough to want to protect the privileged position of the monarchy, so I doubt he will rock the boat too much.

He is well aware of the effect his actions will have upon the future positions of his sons. And he knows that as long as the monarchy is beneficial to the people.. as long as they see its benefits to their country, it will remain.

It will be Charles' job to show his people that the monarchy is still relevant and that it does work for the people. And I think he has shown his willingness in that direction already.. through The Prince's Trust and all the other (many) charities he supports as Prince of Wales.
__________________
Ú i vethed...nâ i onnad. Minlû pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 08-05-2011, 02:00 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renata4711 View Post
Sorry but I think that just because Charles will have been prepared during his life, doesn't mean he has an open mind.
Apart from organic farming etc., he is mainly a figure of fun and he is lacking in authority. Sad, but true.
For someone who is lacking in authority, he seems to have quite an influence on people. His private letters certainly seem to work well
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 08-05-2011, 02:05 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
For someone who is lacking in authority, he seems to have quite an influence on people. His private letters certainly seem to work well
But how many private letters can he write? He needs to be able to make the masses of ordinary Brits feel as though he represents them and understands them, to some extent.

His influence has been felt in architecture, for instance, but while commendable, it is not high on the British People's list of what needs to be fixed in these economic times.

Also, his style of living, so very different from his Mother's, makes him seem apart from the every day Brit. Maybe this will all change when he becomes King, I hope so. As I repeat myself again and again, I don't want to see him fail. Not for his own sake but for the sake of the Institution of the British Monarchy.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:57 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]