Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Friedrich Karl II]

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.

The Bonnie Prince was usurper so not way that prince of Wales would be known as Charles IV.


And I don't understand why some people hope him taking name what he hasn't used through his over 70 years of life. It wouldn't change anything whether he picks CHarles III or George VII. Name not define destiny.

 

[rominet09]

Why not keep his real name ?

 

[muriel]

Why not keep his real name ?

I think he will!

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I think he will!

Charles definitely will!

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

Why not keep his real name ?

Probably Charles keeps his original name but some people just believe or even hope that he would change his name.

 

[tihkon2]

Charles the II was a perfectly good king. He presided over the Restoration. Prince Charles has nothing to be worried about by keeping his name as King.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I am pretty sure he'll stay with his given name. It's 2022, people would only ridicule him for choosing something else (The Artist formerly known as Prince comes to my mind).
Charles is known as Prince Charles for 70+ years on the world stage, it will be difficult enough to get the 'Prince' out of people's minds.

 

[irish_royalist]

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

Presumably because they wished that to be his regnal name.
On her accession, when asked what her regnal name would be, The Queen apparently replied, "My own, of course!"
So we have to assume she would wish the same for her son and heir.
And we have no reason to imagine he would feel differently?

 

[Osipi]

I think Irish Royalist has hit the nail right smack on the head. There is absolutely no need for Charles to take another regnal name when his time comes. George VI chose to use "George" as a way to denote continuity between George V and George VI after Edward VIII abdicated and threw the country into turmoil. There was a good reason. There is no good reason for Charles not to use Charles III.

 

[Mbruno]

I think Irish Royalist has hit the nail right smack on the head. There is absolutely no need for Charles to take another regnal name when his time comes. George VI chose to use "George" as a way to denote continuity between George V and George VI after Edward VIII abdicated and threw the country into turmoil. There was a good reason. There is no good reason for Charles not to use Charles III.

There is at least one plausible reason, which is the association of the regnal name Charles with the Stuart dynasty (an ill-fated dynasty BTW, which saw two kings deposed and one beheaded), and then the association of the same name with the Jacobite pretenders who did not accept the legitimacy of the Revolution of 1688 and the Act of Settlement. Whether those are good reasons or not for Charles to choose another regnal name is open to debate.

Personally I would prefer George VII as Charles III sounds rather dull. The Jacobites aside, Charles is a name I normally associate with French kings, not British monarchs. I guess he could also reign instead as King Arthur, which would the most British (as in Celtic British) of his forenames.

 

[Osipi]

There is at least one plausible reason, which is the association of the regnal name Charles with the Stuart dynasty (an ill-fated dynasty BTW, which saw two kings deposed and one beheaded), and then the association of the same name with the Jacobite pretenders who did not accept the legitimacy of the Revolution of 1688 and the Act of Settlement. Whether those are good reasons or not for Charles to choose another regnal name is open to debate.

Personally I would prefer George VII as Charles III sounds rather dull. The Jacobites aside, Charles is a name I normally associate with French kings, not British monarchs. I guess he could also reign instead as King Arthur, which would the most British (as in Celtic British) of his forenames.

How many people, honestly, in this day and age actually care about the history behind Charles II and the Stuarts and Jacobites in relation to Charles as a reigning British monarch in the 21st century though. Beheadings and deposings and revolutions back during the 17th century for most people are things that historical Netflix dramas are based on.

I really don't think that ancient history would be a reason for Charles to choose another regnal name besides his own. Times have changed. The monarchy has changed and the veil of mystery and mystique have all but disappeared in an age where the royal farts and it's around the world in seconds and incites comments for the next month or three.

 

[tihkon2]

Wasn't it speculated at the time , that he was named Charles because his grandmother had brought Scottish blood back into the family (As an aside I believe thanks to Diana, William will be the first British Sovereign descended from King Charles II AND King James II in over 300 years)

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Charles is nice to use as a regnal name because it has been centuries since it was last used.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

How many people, honestly, in this day and age actually care about the history behind Charles II and the Stuarts and Jacobites in relation to Charles as a reigning British monarch in the 21st century though. Beheadings and deposings and revolutions back during the 17th century for most people are things that historical Netflix dramas are based on.

I really don't think that ancient history would be a reason for Charles to choose another regnal name besides his own. Times have changed. The monarchy has changed and the veil of mystery and mystique have all but disappeared in an age where the royal farts and it's around the world in seconds and incites comments for the next month or three.

I personally agree with you, but the Spanish royal family appears to have steered clear of the regnal name Carlos ever since the Carlist pretenders challenged the legitimacy of Queen Isabel II and her successors, so it is not a farfetched idea. I suppose one difference between Britain and Spain is that there have been no active Jacobite claimants to the British throne in two centuries.

 

[Osipi]

Wasn't it speculated at the time , that he was named Charles because his grandmother had brought Scottish blood back into the family and was also a descendant of King Charles the first, making the present Queen and her son the first British Sovereign (and future Sovereign) descended from him in 300 years. (As an aside I believe thanks to Diana, William will be the first British Sovereign descended from King Charles the Second in over 300 years)

And.... to put in a bit of trivia here, William will be the first British monarch with a somewhat recent American ancestor (Queen Victoria's reign). Diana's great-grandmother on the maternal side was an American socialite named Frances Ellen Work. She married James Boothby Burke Roche, 3rd Baron Fermoy in 1880.

 

[tihkon2]

I edited my previous post because I was wrong about the descent from Charles I. All the descents will be for William. From Charles I, Charles II, and James II.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Even if HRH The Prince of Wales takes a different regnal name other than Charles, how many people within the United Kingdom and Commonwealth would actually call him such? Would people continue to call him Charles anyway, like how Willis Tower is still referred to by its original name Sears Tower nearly twenty years after the rename?

 

[Somebody]

Personally I would prefer George VII as Charles III sounds rather dull. The Jacobites aside, Charles is a name I normally associate with French kings, not British monarchs. I guess he could also reign instead as King Arthur, which would the most British (as in Celtic British) of his forenames.

Why is Charles III more dull than George VII? Both names seem rather dull to be honest... And I very much prefer monarchs to be known by their own name rather than a 'regnal name' that they never used before. And having both a King George and a Prince George isn't attractive either.

The Dutch solution (that Norway also seems to have adopted for future generations) of 2 names that make a regnal name, while using only one of them as their name in private seems a nice solution as well. In this way, the prince known as 'Alex(ander)' in his private life became 'king Willem-Alexander' (note that he was always known as prince Willem-Alexander and never as prince Alexander); the princess known as Amalia will be 'queen Catharina-Amalia'; and I assume the princess known as Ingrid in her daily life will one day reign as 'queen Ingrid Alexandra'.

 

[SLV]

The Dutch solution (that Norway also seems to have adopted for future generations) of 2 names that make a regnal name, while using only one of them as their name in private seems a nice solution as well. In this way, the prince known as 'Alex(ander)' in his private life became 'king Willem-Alexander' (note that he was always known as prince Willem-Alexander and never as prince Alexander); the princess known as Amalia will be 'queen Catharina-Amalia'; and I assume the princess known as Ingrid in her daily life will one day reign as 'queen Ingrid Alexandra'.

According to that reasoning Amalia and Ingrid would use only by that name. WA actively used both names in public as a prince, the girls don't.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Both Catharina-Amalia and Ingrid Alexandra use a double forename for public life.

https://www.royalcourt.no/artikkel.html?tid=28778&sek=28633
https://www.royal-house.nl/members-royal-house/the-princess-of-orange

 

[Somebody]

According to that reasoning Amalia and Ingrid would use only by that name. WA actively used both names in public as a prince, the girls don't.

I don't agree. My reasoning is that their official full names are/will be used as regnal names (which are also used in their current official communication) even though they might be known by only one of their official names in private... Whether the press uses their private names as well is a different matter; it was hardly ever done for WA and is done regularly for CA; I don't know about IA - but the communication from the respective royal houses is key.

Amalia's official name includes a hyphen, her official name is Catharina-Amalia (officially known as The princess of Orange), so I expect that will be her regnal name. In official communication, she is also referenced as 'Catharina-Amalia'. Lots of people therefore were rather surprised that the prime minister recently referred to her as 'princess Amalia' because that is not how she is supposed to be referred to (but as 'the princess of Orange').

Sinds de inhuldiging van haar vader als Koning op 30 april 2013 heeft Prinses Catharina-Amalia de titel Prinses van Oranje. (...) Bij haar geboorte kreeg Prinses Catharina-Amalia de titels Prinses der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau. (...) Prinses Catharina-Amalia volgde vanaf 2007 het basisonderwijs op de Bloemcampschool in Wassenaar.

Source: koninklijkhuis.nl

Ingrid is officially 'Ingrid Alexandra' on the website of the Norwegian royal family, so, while she might use 'Ingrid' in private, the official communication by the Norwegian royal family uses either 'Prinsessen' or 'Princesse Ingrid Alexandra' and never 'Princess Ingrid'.

H.K.H. Prinsessen
Prinsesse Ingrid Alexandra, født 21. januar 2004.
Datter av Kronprins Haakon og Kronprinsesse Mette-Marit.
Nummer to i arverekken til den norske tronen etter sin far, Kronprinsen.

Hennes Kongelige Høyhet Prinsesse Ingrid Alexandra utfører offisielle oppgaver for Kongehuset. Nyhetssaker og utdrag av Prinsessens offisielle program er tilgjengelig herfra.

However, we're getting off-topic as in Charles' case he is known as 'Charles' or the prince of Wales... and not by any combination with one of his other names.

 

[Gawin]

I personally agree with you, but the Spanish royal family appears to have steered clear of the regnal name Carlos ever since the Carlist pretenders challenged the legitimacy of Queen Isabel II and her successors, so it is not a farfetched idea. I suppose one difference between Britain and Spain is that there have been no active Jacobite claimants to the British throne in two centuries.

I'm skeptical Queen Elizabeth would have named her oldest son and heir Charles if the BRF felt it wouldn't be an appropriate regnal name due to its Jacobite associations.

As for the reason the name Charles was selected, Patricia Countess Mountbatten told one biographer it was simply because both the Queen and Prince Philip liked it.

Source: Gyles Brandreth, Philip and Elizabeth: Portrait of a Royal Marriage (2004), pp.190-191.

 

[King of the Jungle]

King Charles sounds fine.
King Charles the Environmental

I think he will choose to be known as King Charles or King Arthur.
King Arthur of the Habitat.

 

[Osipi]

As long as we're going the route of Charles picking a regnal name from the names he was given at birth, he could easily decide too that he'll be called King Philip I in memory of his father. I could easily see him picking this over King Arthur.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

As long as we're going the route of Charles picking a regnal name from the names he was given at birth, he could easily decide too that he'll be called King Philip I in memory of his father. I could easily see him picking this over King Arthur.

But still, why Charles even would change his name since he has been known as "Charles" hwole of his life?


Philip would be inindeed intresting name asnd something what British royals haven't used. But perhaps prince George would give that for his firstborn son. There hardly is reason why he wouldn't.

 

[Kataryn]

But still, why Charles even would change his name since he has been known as "Charles" hwole of his life?


Philip would be inindeed intresting name asnd something what British royals haven't used. But perhaps prince George would give that for his firstborn son. There hardly is reason why he wouldn't.

Wasn't "Armada-Phil" known as king Philip of Spain and England when he was married to queen Mary I.?

 

[JR76]

Wasn't "Armada-Phil" known as king Philip of Spain and England when he was married to queen Mary I.?

A bit simplified, but in England their collective titles were from 1556: "Philip and Mary, by the grace of God King and Queen of England, Spain, France, both the Sicilies, Jerusalem and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol"

 

[lucien]

Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

Per wikipedia!!Since when is that the norm??Never was,never will be.
Charles III it will be.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King Charles II of Great Britain died in 1685. Thus no monarch has had Charles as a regnal name for over three centuries. Three centuries is indeed a long time.
Perhaps because Charles has not been used in such a long time some people are hesitant to see it used again. Since 1714 most of the male monarchs have been Georges or Edwards. Also there was one William: King William IV.

 

[Camsterlaird]

The Bonnie Prince was usurper so not way that prince of Wales would be known as Charles IV.

Not everyone would agree on that point .. they might say that Mary II and William III were the usurpers! Anyway Bonnie Prince Charlie was hailed as the King in Edinburgh ... just saying that using his natal name might not be the best policy.