Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Alison H]

Definitely Charles III. If he were to recognise Bonnie Prince Charlie, that would be saying that he thought George I and George II weren't the legitimate kings - how could he possibly do that?


The de facto/de jure difference is only in the eyes of Jacobites. In the eyes of everyone else, all the rulers from 1688 onwards were the de jure monarchs, as James II/VII had been overthrown and a new line of succession established. You could get into a very long and boring argument about John Locke and social contracts and when it's OK to overthrow a monarch, but that's what happened, and the 1701 Act of Succession was passed by Parliament. You could as soon say that William should be William I because Edgar the Atheling was the de jure king and William the Conqueror only the de facto king: you could go on all day with this, with the various succession disputes over the centuries!

 

[Denville]

Agreed. But which king Charles will he be? I know that former kings are counted if they reigned in the same place, even if it was a different kingdom. Hence Elizabeth is Elisabeth II., though there never was ut still, it makes me wonder if Charles wants to take that or if he will give "Bonnie Prince Charlie" this acknowledgement (he was the last male-line Stuart anyway) and reign as Charles IV. or go with the title of George VII?

In times when the Scottish independance is still a very actual topic, there might be discussions about that as well.

Of course he wont be recongising "Bonnie Prince Charlie". He'll be Charles III.

 

[Iain]

Elizabeth is Elisabeth II., though there never was an Elizabeth I. of Scotland. But as England is a part of the Uk, she is the second Elizabeth to rule there.

The UK has only had one Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth Tudor was Queen of England, not the UK, which only came into existence in 1801.

 

[Durham]

This formula was suggested by Churchill in 1952 as some Scots objected to the new sovereign being known as Elizabeth ii.

"I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher."


https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/apr/15/royal-style-and-title

For instance any future King James of the UK would be James viii not James iii.

 

[_Heather_]

I tend to agree with you. Charles will become King late in life, and is unlikely to want to be known by a different name to that which he has been known for all these years.

Agreed entirely. While it is certainly his right to select a new regnal name if he should feel strongly about it enough to do so, I simply just don't see it happening. 70+ years is a long time for one to be associated with a name just to see it changed and everyone falling all over themselves to adjust. It does seem rather silly. Now, that said, I suppose there are some very good reasons to change one's regnal name, particularly under certain circumstances. I believe it was the right decision for King George VI. I could also see it taking place if a parent were to die young or valiantly as a hero of some sort as a way to honor that person. For instance, should William have died in the line of duty while helping to rescue someone as an air ambulance pilot it may have made sense for George to then rule under the regnal name of William in tribute to his father if he had wished to do so.

However, under the current circumstances, I really can't think of any good reason for Charles to be known as anything other than King Charles III.

 

[Denville]

I am sure that there has been speculations about Charles' regnal name sicne court published his name. And I wouldn't give much attention to rumours. These are just rumours not facts.

it is hardly likely that he would have ever made any kind of announcement that he intended to use a particular regnal name.. so all we have to go on are rumours.... but there may have been a time years ago that he did perhaps say to someone privately that he'd prefer George to Charles. however if he did, I think that by now he has probably accepted its better to stay with his own first name.

 

[Somebody]

I wasn't sure in which thread Camilla's future title was discussed (maybe it should have it's own thread?); so feel free to move it to a more appropriate place.

I just read that Tom Parker-Bowles commented on his mother's future title. Not sure why he felt the need to answer.

"I honestly don't know if Mum will be called queen," her son Tom Parker-Bowles, told The Times on Thursday. "That hasn't been decided. There are a lot of interesting Sky documentaries about that I'm sure, but I honestly don't know if that's true."

 

[Betsypaige]

I wasn't sure in which thread Camilla's future title was discussed (maybe it should have it's own thread?); so feel free to move it to a more appropriate place.

I just read that Tom Parker-Bowles commented on his mother's future title. Not sure why he felt the need to answer.

She sure deserves to be Queen...no matter what the public thinks

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

IMO it would be bit odd if she wouldn't be queen but only just duchess of Cornwall.


Anyway, why Brits seems hate her so much? Is that just sensitive feel that she stole Diana's place or is there something else? Like has she said or done something (beside causing Charles' and Diana's divorce) which has angried them?

 

[Iluvbertie]

She won't be The Duchess of Cornwall when Charles is King. Catherine will instantly become Duchess of Cornwall when The Queen dies.

Camilla is currently The Duchess of Cornwall as the wife of The Duke of Cornwall. When Charles becomes King he will no longer hold that title (William will).

The only title that Camilla will hold the instant The Queen dies is 'Queen' as Charles will only hold the title of King (other then when dealing with matters concerning the Duchy of Lancaster).

There could be an argument that she could be Duchess of Lancaster but I can find no reference to any spouse of a Duke of Lancaster using that title since the Duke of Lancaster title is a title held by the monarch.

 

[Denville]

if she's not titled as Queen, she'll be titled as Princess Consort, as was announced at the time of her marriage.

 

[Mbruno]

Agreed. But which king Charles will he be? I know that former kings are counted if they reigned in the same place, even if it was a different kingdom. Hence Elizabeth is Elisabeth II., though there never was an Elizabeth I. of Scotland. But as England is a part of the Uk, she is the second Elizabeth to rule there. Now with Charles we get a historical problem: does they follow the de jure or the de facto kings? For de facto Charles would be Charles III., as there were two kings Charles of the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.

De jure there was a Charles III. as well, as grandson of the deposed king James he was a nephew of queen Anne and thus close to the throne: Charles Edward Stuart, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie. When he tried to take back his inheritance 1745, he took Edinburgh and was named there as Princeregent for his father James III. who had stayed in Rome. After his uprising failed, the Princeregent (officially named that by his father before 1745) settled back in Rome and in 1766, after his father's death, declared himself Charles III. A title the pope acknowledged.


Now of course the British Parliament didn't acknowledge him, so Chalres could take the Regal Number, but still, it makes me wonder if Charles wants to take that or if he will give "Bonnie Prince Charlie" this acknowledgement (he was the last male-line Stuart anyway) and reign as Charles IV. or go with the title of George VII?

In times when the Scottish independence is still a very actual topic, there might be discussions about that as well.

If he recognized Bonnie Prince Charlie, he would have by analogy to recognize also all subsequent de jure kings of England and Scotland in the Jacobite line of succession (respectively of the Houses of Orléans, Savoy, Austria-Este, and Wittelsbach). And he would also have to acknowledge that all British monarchs from William III and Mary II to his mother were illegitimate.


Of course that is not going to happen. Parliament asserted its sovereignty in 1689 and again in 1701 declaring that it has the exclusive power to determine by law the order of succession to the throne. And the law excluded all Jacobite pretenders including Bonnie Prince Charlie from the succession.

 

[Sandy345]

I wasn't sure in which thread Camilla's future title was discussed (maybe it should have it's own thread?); so feel free to move it to a more appropriate place.

I just read that Tom Parker-Bowles commented on his mother's future title. Not sure why he felt the need to answer.

I don't think it appropriate for Tom Parker Bowles to talk about his mother's possible future titles. I think his stepfather should speak to him about that.

 

[Osipi]

As Charles is both stepfather and godfather to Tom Parker-Bowles who has known "Sir" (affectionate term used like "uncle") since childhood, I don't see a problem here. His answer though was very noncommittal and as informative as either Charles or Camilla stating "we'll see" when asked the same question.

 

[Andy T]

My money is on Charles III, and that is also what I would prefer.
He's been known as Charles all his life and changing at this point would be a bit silly. He's the only Charles in the core Royal Family but not the only George, his grandson being destined to be King.

Bertie junior became George VI to emphasise continuity after the abdication episode and Bertie senior, known anyway as Albert Edward, became Edward VII so as not to eclipse his father, allegedly.

 

[Leopoldine]

If he recognized Bonnie Prince Charlie, he would have by analogy to recognize also all subsequent de jure kings of England and Scotland in the Jacobite line of succession (respectively of the Houses of Orléans, Savoy, Austria-Este, and Wittelsbach). And he would also have to acknowledge that all British monarchs from William III and Mary II to his mother were illegitimate.


Of course that is not going to happen. Parliament asserted its sovereignty in 1689 and again in 1701 declaring that it has the exclusive power to determine by law the order of succession to the throne. And the law excluded all Jacobite pretenders including Bonnie Prince Charlie from the succession.

He wears Bonnie Prince Charlie's tartan occasionally in Scotland, which is odd.

 

[Car8007]

I hope he's Charles III. The previous 2 kings of that name go back hundreds of years, so why would anyone care about them in the 2020's? Time to drop the stigma of that name and make it fresh again. And I hoped Wills and Kate had named one of their sons Richard, that's a fine old name that's been set aside for too long.

 

[Sionevar]

I hope he's Charles III. The previous 2 kings of that name go back hundreds of years, so why would anyone care about them in the 2020's? Time to drop the stigma of that name and make it fresh again. And I hoped Wills and Kate had named one of their sons Richard, that's a fine old name that's been set aside for too long.

The current Duke of Gloucester is Richard, so there is one of them in the BRF.

 

[Blog Real]

I hope he's Charles III. The previous 2 kings of that name go back hundreds of years, so why would anyone care about them in the 2020's? Time to drop the stigma of that name and make it fresh again. And I hoped Wills and Kate had named one of their sons Richard, that's a fine old name that's been set aside for too long.

I agree with you. I like the name Richard and I hope it will be used again in the future. But I liked that William and Catherine had called their son George, which was the name of the Queen's father.
I also think Charles will choose the name Charles III.

 

[Denville]

By rights, the queens father was called Albert, but I think that George is a better name.. and when they went for a second son they were unconventional in choosing Louis. But yes Im sure Charles will be Chaarles III

 

[Claire]

I think he will take a George

 

[Denville]

If you mean Charles Id say its unlikely. He may not be crazy about his name, most of us tend to wish at times we were called something different, but I feel that he's not likely at 70 plus, to change it.

 

[Blog Real]

Why did the Queen and Prince Philip decide to name their son Charles?

 

[Denville]

Theyve never said, so noone knows. Just liked the name and its a royal name, probalby

 

[CyrilVladisla]

At the time of announcing the new baby's name, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip may have felt that there had been plenty of Georges with a few Edwards. They may have wanted a completely different first name.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

It is quiet unlikely that Charles would take another name. He is already over 70 so not much point to do that since he has been known as Charles whole of his life and he wouldn't reign anywhere such lenght than his mother. And there hardly is anymore such stigma over previous Charles' of England. I don't think that anyone wouldn't care. Name is not something like omen.

 

[Camsterlaird]

I hope he's Charles III. The previous 2 kings of that name go back hundreds of years, so why would anyone care about them in the 2020's? Time to drop the stigma of that name and make it fresh again. And I hoped Wills and Kate had named one of their sons Richard, that's a fine old name that's been set aside for too long.

Neither Charles I or Charles II had auspicious reigns, and in Scotland he might be known as Charles IV (Charles III being Bonnie Prince Charlie). I hope he is George VII.

 

[Osipi]

I've not changed my mind on this over the years. I still think Charles should be referred to when he's King as Charles the Green. Not only for his passion on conservation and protection of the planet but also because we all know it's not easy being green.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Osipi, Prince Charles has done a huge amount of work in horticulture. Charles the Green would be a respectful tribute.

 

[Biri]

For his 73-year-old life he has been known as Charles and he will be Charles III