Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Denville]

Probably Charles

 

[Countessmeout]

Charles will do as his mother did before him, reign by his own name. It doesn't matter the history of the name. Elizabeth didn't choose to reign by her name because of Elizabeth I. When asked what name she would reign by, she said her own of course. Charles is his mother's son.

 

[Denville]

It doesn't mean that he will do everything the same as her, in fact he has generally shown tht he wants to be different.

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

Her Majesty will never abdicate.

Her Majesty will never abdicate, she made the promise to her people. In the event of her inability to carry out her duties, a regency would be created. Charles has a right to choose whatever name he wishes. George or Charles would be excellent.

 

[Osipi]

I just had a giggle of a thought. If and when Charles and Camilla become King and Queen/Princess Consort, they may opt out to call each other King Fred and Queen Gladys in private.

A brief history of the nicknames:

Charles and Camilla Nicknames, Gladys and Fred : People.com

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

I think that a King "George VII of England" (the regnal title I expect Charles to take) should look to Juan Carlos of Spain as a model to emulate. I think under "George VII" there may be a move to codify the English constitution, Scotland may succeed (and hopefully Wales too), many Commonwealth countries may go republican, and "George VII" will have an opportunity to recast the monarchy in England from an "Imperial" monarchy to one more in line with the Spanish or Scandinavian examples.... streamlined court, less excessive pomp or fuddy duddyness, yet while honoring those aspects of hereditary monarchy that do play a role in a democratic nation.

I think he can best let his sentiments be known by the causes he patronizes, rather then becoming a spokesman... which may conflict with his constitutional duties. The King of Spain does have opinions that on occasion he lets be known in public, and he does vote in referendums (and maybe in elections, this I don’t know for sure.) But he has tact to know the difference when to speak his mind and when not to.

I like Charles, and hope his wife becomes queen of England. I think he will do a great job, but it may be temptious as England will be going through many changes during his kingship.

I'm sorry, but the future British King should not follow the example of European monarchies. We have always done things differently to Europe. Pomp and circumstance is what we do in this Kingdom. The Commonwealth and the UK should remain united.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

When Charles becomes the sovereign, what if he chose to use Charles III Philip as his regnal name?

 

[Countessmeout]

No. For many reasons.

1. Charles is not Charles Philip. He doesn't have a double first, Philip is one of his middle names,
2. Even the British kings who did have double barrel, ruled by only 1.
3. And if he broke with tradition he would simply be King Charles Philip, It is a Swedish thing to put the number in between. The Brits have a pretty remote link to Swedes, no reason they would adopt their odd style. Like Willem-Alexander. Instead of William IV Alexander, he is simply Willem-Alexander. If he had chosen to use the ordinal he'd have dropped Alexander from his first name.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It depends from country to country. The many Stadtholders and Kings themselves never used the numeral. It was always: "We, Willem, by the grace of God King of the Netherlands". It is the outside world, it are the historians, adding a numeral to the name for quite understandable reasons.

In the UK the numeral is already used during lifetime and in official documents. In the interview before the kingship the Prince of Orange was pretty logical. "Willem-Alexander simply is my name. That is how I am called. Not Willem and not Alexander." Knowing that the Prince of Wales has been known all his long life as Charles, it seems unlikely to me he will ever be known with another name than that. He can follow the very same logic: "Charles simply is my name. That is how I am called. Not Philip and not Arthur."

 

[Denville]

I just had a giggle of a thought. If and when Charles and Camilla become King and Queen/Princess Consort, they may opt out to call each other King Fred and Queen Gladys in private.

A brief history of the nicknames:

Charles and Camilla Nicknames, Gladys and Fred : People.com

I hope not. It is kind of an embarrassing thing which became public due to the whole drama of his first marriage. And it is a private reminder of their pre marital affair.
I think he'll opt for Charles, ie Charles III. It would be odd nowadays to take a different name for reigning...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That will be a major job: all uniforms, all letterheads, all state monograms, etc. after more than 60 years EIIR change in CIIIR...

 

[Osipi]

Is there any monarch over history whose name started with an E and he was the only one? Take the name Edmund for example. If there was only one King Edmund, if Charles chose to use that for a regnal name, no changes need to be made. He'd still be EIIR.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is a good one. But after him comes WVR and then GVIIR... Ach, in the scheme of things: the make-over of all royal cyphers is just a fraction of the costs of one Trident or one mile of the HS2-project or and sinks away in the costs of a new nuclear station in Hinkley.

 

[Denville]

Is there any monarch over history whose name started with an E and he was the only one? Take the name Edmund for example. If there was only one King Edmund, if Charles chose to use that for a regnal name, no changes need to be made. He'd still be EIIR.

perhaps all monarchs should just call themselves Eliz II?

No. For many reasons.

1. Charles is not Charles Philip. He doesn't have a double first, Philip is one of his middle names,
2. Even the British kings who did have double barrel, ruled by only 1.
3. And if he broke with tradition he would simply be King Charles Philip, It is a Swedish thing to put the number in between. The Brits have a pretty remote link to Swedes, no reason they would adopt their odd style. Like Willem-Alexander. Instead of William IV Alexander, he is simply Willem-Alexander. If he had chosen to use the ordinal he'd have dropped Alexander from his first name.

I don't believe there was ever an English King who had a double name.. Even with some of the Georges I think they were loosely known as George Louis to distinguish them from other Georges.
WRT the Dutch I believe that John Friso who died, he called himself Prince Friso later on, so I think that they are more inclined to drop the first name.. WA's daguther is called Catherina Amalia but goes by Amalia.

 

[Ish]

I don't believe there was ever an English King who had a double name.. Even with some of the Georges I think they were loosely known as George Louis to distinguish them from other Georges.

WRT the Dutch I believe that John Friso who died, he called himself Prince Friso later on, so I think that they are more inclined to drop the first name.. WA's daguther is called Catherina Amalia but goes by Amalia.

English Kings and British Kings are different things - English refers to those Kings who only ruled England, while British can refer to both those who ruled the whole Of Britain, or those who were British and ruled within Britain.

There are no English Kings who had a double name; most didn't even have middle names. The same can be said for the Scottish Kings. On of James VI/I's sons had a double name, Henry Frederick, but that's the extent of it.

Many of the Hanoverian British royals had double names. George I was George Louis, George II was George Augustus, William IV was William Henry, Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria, Edward VII was Albert Edward. None ruled as double named, they all dropped it. That said, it's kind of clear that these were actual double names as there were other royals (who didn't become monarchs) who also had double names at the time; I believe all of the siblings of George I had double names, as did both of his legitimate children. George III's sister was the infamous Caroline Matilda, and among his children were William Henry (later William IV), Augusta Sophia, Ernst Augustus, and Augustus Frederick. Victoria's eldest son was Albert Edward (later Edward VII), and his eldest was Albert Victor.

 

[Countessmeout]

I don't believe there was ever an English King who had a double name.. Even with some of the Georges I think they were loosely known as George Louis to distinguish them from other Georges.
WRT the Dutch I believe that John Friso who died, he called himself Prince Friso later on, so I think that they are more inclined to drop the first name.. WA's daguther is called Catherina Amalia but goes by Amalia.

George I: George Louis (all 6 of his siblings had double names)
George II: George Augustus (sister Sophia Dorothea)
-his eldest son was Frederick Louis (his other 2 sons had double)
George III" was only one of 9 kids who didn't
William IV: William Henry, of the boys only George III and 2 youngest boys didn't, several sisters did
Victoria: Alexandrina Victoria
Edward VII: Albert Edward.
-his intended heir was Albert Victor

It wasn't loosely to distinguish them it was their names. The point being none of them reigned with a double. Besides Charles isn't Charles Philip, Philip is a middle name.

WA for years before he became king said he would reign as William IV. He changed his mind. He was known as Alexander I believe as a kid. Queen Wilhemina and her brothers were all named Willliam, distinguished by a middle (oldest went by William, younger 2 by Maurice and Alexander).

But the entire point is (in response to original post), Charles wont be Charles III Philip. Even if his name was Charles Philip. Such a naming style is Swedish. I simply used WA as he is one of the non-Swedish monarchs who has a double name. JC obviously but there hasn't been a king Juan so he didn't work as an example. WA does as there has been 3 Williams. WA would either rule as William IV or William Alexander, he would never have been William IV Alexander.

 

[Denville]

Of course they had more than one name, but they weren't generally known by it.. that's not what I mean by double names...

 

[LauraS3514]

Is there any monarch over history whose name started with an E and he was the only one? Take the name Edmund for example. If there was only one King Edmund, if Charles chose to use that for a regnal name, no changes need to be made. He'd still be EIIR.

Not quite - the numbering for English monarchs starts at the Norman Conquest in 1066. Prior to the Conquest English kings had "nicknames" attached by history to their given names to distinguish them i.e. Edward the Martyr, Edward the Elder, Edward the Confessor, Edmund Ironside, etc. so a future King Edmund would be the 1st. Also, it was decided at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth II that all future monarchs of the UK would use the highest ordinal of either the English or Scottish monarchy where there were duplicate or original names. This became an issue because Scotland had never had a previous "Queen Elizabeth". Neither Charles, William or George will be affected but say, a future King James would be James VIII and not James III if the UK monarchy survives (presuming they don't count the Old Pretender, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

 

[Countessmeout]

Of course they had more than one name, but they weren't generally known by it.. that's not what I mean by double names...

What someone is known in private doesn't change their legal name or how they choose to reign.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not quite - the numbering for English monarchs starts at the Norman Conquest in 1066. Prior to the Conquest English kings had "nicknames" attached by history to their given names to distinguish them i.e. Edward the Martyr, Edward the Elder, Edward the Confessor, Edmund Ironside, etc. so a future King Edmund would be the 1st. Also, it was decided at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth II that all future monarchs of the UK would use the highest ordinal of either the English or Scottish monarchy where there were duplicate or original names. This became an issue because Scotland had never had a previous "Queen Elizabeth". Neither Charles, William or George will be affected but say, a future King James would be James VIII if the UK monarchy survives (presuming they don't count the Old Pretender, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

The exception, I suspect, to all of that would be the name Harold. Harold Godwinson was known as Harold II and so a new Harold would be Harold III. We know that the Edward's name themselves from after the conquest but I am not so sure that a Harold would do so given that Harold II is the name used in History for Harold Godwinson.

 

[LauraS3514]

The exception, I suspect, to all of that would be the name Harold. Harold Godwinson was known as Harold II and so a new Harold would be Harold III. We know that the Edward's name themselves from after the conquest but I am not so sure that a Harold would do so given that Harold II is the name used in History for Harold Godwinson.

You're probably right - I'd forgotten about Harold.

 

[Denville]

What someone is known in private doesn't change their legal name or how they choose to reign.

I never said that it did....

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When Charles comes on the throne as Philip, for an example to honour his father, he has two colleagues with the same name: Felipe VII de España and Philippe de Belgique/Filip van België.

When William comes on the throne by his own name, he will possibly have two colleagues with the same name: Willem-Alexander der Nederlanden and Guillaume V de Luxembourg/Wilhelm V von Luxemburg.

 

[Denville]

Why would Charles use his second name? He'll be Charles, noting else. I dont beleive that it is likely he would adopt the name of George, though there have been stories.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That is most unlikely indeed but we have seen it before, didn't we? Queen Victoria went by the name Alexandrina but used her second name: Victoria. Prince Charles´very own grandfather went by the name Albert (Bertie) but used his fourth name: George.

 

[Lee-Z]

Imo it's not that it didn't happen in the past, but nowadays it's different, I think hypothetically if P.Charles (who has been known by the name Charles for so long) would take one of his other names Philip or George as his regnal name, people would think he was "stealing" the name of his father of grandson (resp.) and that would be really strange thing to do...

Nope, i think he will use Charles

 

[Ish]

That is most unlikely indeed but we have seen it before, didn't we? Queen Victoria went by the name Alexandrina but used her second name: Victoria. Prince Charles´very own grandfather went by the name Albert (Bertie) but used his fourth name: George.

Did she go by Alexandrina? Everything I've read indicates she went by Victoria as a princess, although she was called "Drina" by the family when she was very young.

Bertie, of course, was a special exception owing to the abdication; he deliberately chose to go by George as monarch instead of Albert to convey continuity with his father's reign in a time of crisis.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Wikipedia states: "Official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria but the first name was withdrawn at her own wish and not used again."

By the way, her son Prince Albert (Bertie) became king in 1901 and took his second name Edward as regnal name, apparently against the wish of his late mother.

 

[Rudolph]

Accession council proclamation for Queen Victoria

Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God to call to His mercy our late Sovereign Lord King William IV., of blessed and glorious memory, by whose decease the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the high and mighty Princess Alexandrina Victoria, saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty King William IV. which may be born of his late Majesty's consort—we, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with these of his late Majesty's Privy Council, with numbers of other principal gentlemen of quality, with the Lord-Mayor, Aldermen, and citizens of London, do now hereby, with one voice and consent of tongue and heart, publish and proclaim, that the high and mighty Princess Alexandrina Victoria is now, by the death of our late Sovereign, of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful Liege Lady Victoria, by the Grace of God, Queen of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, saving as aforesaid. To whom, saving as aforesaid, we do acknowledge all faith and constant obedience, with all hearty and humble affection, beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess Victoria with long and happy years to reign over us.

Given at the Court of Kensington, this 20th day of June, 1837.

Charles is already seem by some to be a little eccentric, to reign by a name other than Charles would seem odd in the 21 century, but who knows, he may surprise us.

 

[Denville]

Did she go by Alexandrina? Everything I've read indicates she went by Victoria as a princess, although she was called "Drina" by the family when she was very young.

Bertie, of course, was a special exception owing to the abdication; he deliberately chose to go by George as monarch instead of Albert to convey continuity with his father's reign in a time of crisis.

Alexandrina was used at times - as part of her official name. But I think that even in private it was dropped early and her mother called her "Vicklechen" ie Little Vicky. She wanted Albt Edward her son to use both names, which would have been not uncommon for a continental monarch but he didnt want to..I wonder if he secretly was fed up with Albert being lauded as so much better than he was... - and he decided to reign as Edw VII.
ANd yes, the late George VI was a speicial case, in that he deliberately chose George because of the Abdication. But nowadays it DOES look odd for a king to change the name he is usually known by, and while Chas likes to be a bit eccentric, I think he will probalby opt for his own name, in the end.. I think that he might realise that people would be like "why is he doing this?".. and foreigners mgiht not realise who he is, with a new name.