Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would Prince Charles want to change his 1st name just because he will be king someday? He was born Charles and that is a nice strong name for any man and dignified also.....the world knows him as Charles and the family knows him as such so I think it would be hard to all of a sudden for him to have everyone call him something else...*Hey, George as someone calls him and Charles does not turn around when being called*........:bang:
 
The thing is-he wouldn't be changing his name, he'd just be using one of his other names--just like his grandfather, his uncle, and his great great grandfather did.
 
Yes, but King George V didn't use Albert, his first name because there had never been any King Alberts on the British throne and he didn't want to start, especially as in 1936 the Windsors wanted to emphasise continuity.

King Edward VII didn't want to be Albert I for the same reason, (no previous Alberts) and although his parents had undoubtedly hoped that he would reign as King Albert Edward of Great Britain when he was christened, he chose to be simply Edward when he was crowned.

Kings of Great Britain don't seem to have wanted to rock the boat in the last two centuries as far as adopting foreign names. Charles however does have two predecessors on the throne who were Charles so there will be no real need to change.
 
The thing is-he wouldn't be changing his name, he'd just be using one of his other names--just like his grandfather, his uncle, and his great great grandfather did.


By "his uncle" I assume you mean Edward VIII (who was actually his great-uncle). While EVIII was known in the family as David, that was actually the last of his names - his first was Edward, which is what he was always known publicly as.
 
I kind of like a whimsical idea of Charles being Charles the Green and using a frog with it on a coin. Won't happen but I think it'd define Charles well. :D

Just love the idea, Osipi.
 
I don't expect Charles to take a different regal name than the name he has been known with his whole life. Previously that might have been common but assuming that he doesn't want to create unnecessary distance between him and the people, being King Charles III makes most sense.

If he wants the people to fuss about something else than "Queen Camilla" it might be a good diversion strategy to pick a different regal name (than Charles)...
 
If it's fuss he's after, he should choose "William" as his regnal name :lol:
 
If it's fuss he's after, he should choose "William" as his regnal name :lol:

The rumour has been around for some time that he might choose George as his name. But I think it is not thtat likely. I doubt if he'd choose a name that isn't one he was given at christening.. but I don't think there is anything to stop him if he wanted to.
 
Why he shouldn't be Charles III? Because Charles I was beheaded?
All the world know him as Charles.
 
With the way some people really don't pay attention much to the BRF outside of what the Daily Fail prints, if Charles were to decide to go by the regnal name of George, there'll be hoards of people out there that will actually think that Charles was bypassed for the throne and someone else named "George" stepped in with the Daily Fail leading the crowd.

I wouldn't put it past them. :D
 
Charles will likely come to the throne and being somewhere between 70-75 years old. I don't think a man in that age who has had the same "spoken name" for his whole life is interested in changing name.
As far as i know he has always been known as Charles inside the family too.

The next regent couple will be King Charles III and Queen/Princess Consort Camilla.
 
Well, well...if he won't renounce the throne to William (who will be in the flower of a man's age - between 35 and 50).
 
It has long been rumoured that he didn't like his first name.. Perhaps he does feel thtat it has unlucky overtones because of the Stuarts. But there is noting to STOP him from using another name, if he wants to.
 
Well, well...if he won't renounce the throne to William (who will be in the flower of a man's age - between 35 and 50).

There are just some things we know with a 99.9% of probability such as the sun will rise tomorrow in the east. Another one is that Charles will never, in sound body and mind, ever renounce his succession to the throne. It is something that he has been working towards for his entire life, has prepared extensively for it and, in my opinion, has inherited a deep sense of duty from his parents.

I'm of the opinion that I will see the sun rising in the west before I see Charles renounce the throne. He's more than ready to step into his role as King Charles III.
 
Agree. Maybe in William's time HE will wish to retitre at 70, and pass on to George but there is NO way Charles will. He wants to be King. He has waited all his life for this and worked hard preparing for it.

Charles will likely come to the throne and being somewhere between 70-75 years old. I don't think a man in that age who has had the same "spoken name" for his whole life is interested in changing name.
As far as i know he has always been known as Charles inside the family too.

The next regent couple will be King Charles III and Queen/Princess Consort Camilla.

Edward VII was always called Bertie and HE chose to be known as Edward VII when he became King at 59.

With the way some people really don't pay attention much to the BRF outside of what the Daily Fail prints, if Charles were to decide to go by the regnal name of George, there'll be hoards of people out there that will actually think that Charles was bypassed for the throne and someone else named "George" stepped in with the Daily Fail leading the crowd.

I wouldn't put it past them. :D
Maybe peole outside the UK, but I doubt if anyone in the UK is going to think that. The papers will be full of articles about it, if he DOES go for the George name.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just had a very amusing thought. Should Charles come to the throne in the next few years and change his name to George while his grandson, George, is still relatively young, I can see little George declaring that if Grampa can change his name to George, then *he* can change his name to Sam after Fireman Sam. :lol:
 
Edward VII was always called Bertie and HE chose to be known as Edward VII when he became King at 59.

Bertie was his "nickname". He was christened Albert Edward and Queen Victoria wanted him to rule as King Albert Edward. But he choosed Edward to not overshadow the memory of his late father Albert The Prince Consort.

Don't know if Charles have a nickname. Have never heard of any.

Well, well...if he won't renounce the throne to William (who will be in the flower of a man's age - between 35 and 50).

Had i been working very hard to prepare myself to be King since the age of 4, there is no way on earth i would give it up, even if i would have to go to my coronation in a wheelchair ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bertie was his "nickname". He was christened Albert Edward and Queen Victoria wanted him to rule as King Albert Edward. But he choosed Edward to not overshadow the memory of his late father Albert The Prince Consort.

Hmm, I always thought he did it out of spite; he was well-aware of the critical view his parents had of him, and the fact that his mother blamed him for his father's death.

Once he was king, he decided he'd do as he pleased and disregard their wishes.
 
Hmm, I always thought he did it out of spite; he was well-aware of the critical view his parents had of him, and the fact that his mother blamed him for his father's death.

Once he was king, he decided he'd do as he pleased and disregard their wishes.
The "public" reason was that he didn't want to overshadow his father. I'm thinking that the private reason was something closer to spite. We'll never know.
 
I digging into the recesses of my memory bank but one of the reasons given that there was a discussion about Charles' regnal name was because of Scotland and their links to the Old and the Young Pretender (Bonnie Prince Charlie)

Charles might be "III" in England, but he would be "V" in Scotland - or so the story goes. By choosing another name and number (He can choose the number as well) this bone of contention would disappear!

All nonsense of course but this story was my 1st introduction to the idea of him being George VII
 
I believe you’re correct at the origins; if memory serves the commentary about Charles being an inappropriate name because of Bonnie Prince Charlie began pretty much as soon as Charles’ name was announced.

It’s absurd, and even the most ardent of Jacobite supporters wouldn’t consider Charles to be “Charles V”; that numbering would only come into play if there were a Jacobite restoration.

But then, the people in the media who report on why Charles won’t use his name tend to gloss over facts and details.
 
There can be but BARELY 100 Jacobites on the entire Planet.. I hardly think we need fuss about their sensibilities !
 
I think I grew up with a Jacob that lived down the street from me and used to bite people frequently.

Sorry.... had to do it. :D

I do have to agree that the Jacobite movement isn't nearly as strong as it was once upon a time.
 
There was an article in People magazine more than twenty years ago that had an article about England. Even back then in the article there was a mention that The Prince of Wales could use a different regnal name. George VII was given as an example.
 
I think I grew up with a Jacob that lived down the street from me and used to bite people frequently.

Sorry.... had to do it. :D

I do have to agree that the Jacobite movement isn't nearly as strong as it was once upon a time.

I chuckled :)

I don't think there's been a strong Jacobite movement since the '45 Rebellion. No Jacobite heir has claimed the throne since the death of Henry Benedict Stuart in 1807.

It's rather silly for people to think that Charles is going to change his name simply because 230 years ago a man claimed to be Charles III, when he never actually held the throne.
 
I chuckled :)

I don't think there's been a strong Jacobite movement since the '45 Rebellion. No Jacobite heir has claimed the throne since the death of Henry Benedict Stuart in 1807.

It's rather silly for people to think that Charles is going to change his name simply because 230 years ago a man claimed to be Charles III, when he never actually held the throne.

I didn't say that was why he would want to do it (and I doubt that he will). It's the story that started this nonsense many many yrs ago.
 
I digging into the recesses of my memory bank but one of the reasons given that there was a discussion about Charles' regnal name was because of Scotland and their links to the Old and the Young Pretender (Bonnie Prince Charlie)

Charles might be "III" in England, but he would be "V" in Scotland - or so the story goes. By choosing another name and number (He can choose the number as well) this bone of contention would disappear!

All nonsense of course but this story was my 1st introduction to the idea of him being George VII

I am a tad confused to Charles V. Who would Charles IV have been?:ermm:

The old pretender was James. He claimed the throne as James III and VIII of Scotland. Bonnie Prince Charlie tried to claim the throne as Charles III. Is there some other claimant I am unaware of? The only other Jacobite claimant was his brother Henry who would have been Henry IX.

Besides the numbering has no place unless they were restored.
 
I am a tad confused to Charles V. Who would Charles IV have been?:ermm:



The old pretender was James. He claimed the throne as James III and VIII of Scotland. Bonnie Prince Charlie tried to claim the throne as Charles III. Is there some other claimant I am unaware of? The only other Jacobite claimant was his brother Henry who would have been Henry IX.



Besides the numbering has no place unless they were restored.



Henry was the last person to make a claim themselves, but others have had claims made on their behalf - the current heir is Franz, Duke of Bavaria (styled by Jacobites as Francis II).

Henry’s successor (to the claim) was Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia, who was styled by Jacobites as Charles IV.
 
How did Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia have a claim to the throne of Scotland?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom