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.
IMO, I think many people throughout the realms would bust out their best 'side eye' if the Prince of Wales chose a regnal name other than King Charles III.


Have to agree with this.I also think having a regnal name is kind of dated/backwards, and the POW certainly isn't.
 
Have to agree with this.I also think having a regnal name is kind of dated/backwards, and the POW certainly isn't.

Although Charles will be the first King of the 21st century and he is quite a traditionalist still, I think the days of choosing a different regnal name will be something that will be relegated to the history books.

I do think it will be King Charles III and Queen Camilla with King William IV and Queen Catherine.

On the subject of a regnal name of King David, I seriously doubt that it will ever come to pass in our lifetimes. For one, there are still those that would associate a King David with the abdication of Edward VIII. Another reason perhaps is that it would have a slight political implication in global affairs as if a King David would be honoring the David of ancient biblical times. This might be off the wall but what came to my mind on the subject.

I still like Charles the Green. :D
 
I still like Charles the Green. :D

I love this!

I also think he will choose to reign as Charles.

Weird, isn't it, to think of "Queen Camilla" - not for *any* other reason than Camilla is just not a name I associate with a "Queen" except in a pop-star sort of way. Truth be told, I think she's a credit to her role and will be a good consort for Charles - a little like George's Mary, maybe.
 
Now that you mention it, in a way I kind of would associate the pair of them as being similar to Charles' grandparents George and Elizabeth. Camilla will be just as strong of a support system for Charles as his beloved grandmother was.

Its kind of nice to realize how over the past generations and getting a bit of a glimpse into probable future reigns how closely a monarch and his/her consort rely and depend on each other and if that couple can remain stable and work together, it bodes well for the realm also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, I love 'Charles the Green' :D! Fits him to a tee.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Could be mistaken, but it is my belief that the reason Albert took George VI as his Regnal name was twofold:

1. Albert was seen at the time, just before the onset of war, as being too "German" - I believe it was Churchill who suggested George as a means of dealing with that problem and it had the benefit of ...

2. Establishing continuity with the well-liked George V after Edward's abdication.

Charles, as Regnal name, has a bit of baggage, no? The first was beheaded and the second was a little bit of a hedonistic chap, if history remembers him well. I always wondered why they named him Charles, to be truthful.

Semi joke: If he has to pick from his actual names (Charles Phillip Arthur George), I would go with Arthur. We could use another King Arthur, don't you think?

Back to serious: I think he should be George VII.
 
I really hope Charles will keep his own name when he becomes King.
( I just like it sooo much better than George...I agree with Tyger that George is old-fashioned and a bit stuffy).

As for Albert, there's never been a King Albert and I'm so relieved! Such a dorky name!
I think better of Charles than imagining he would choose that! Ewww.

I love the name David, I hope William and Catherine use that for one of their children in future.
 
Well whatever name the Prince of Wales decides on, he will make a excellent king when his time comes IMO.
 
I think anything other than Charles would be silly-and would be greeted with much surprise.There will be enough to-do about whether it is to be Queen Camilla or not without suddenly giving himself another name after being known world wide as Charles for what will be then be at least 70 years...

It was different in the days of Edward VII and George VI-people were far less familiar then and would have refered to them much more by their titles ( Prince of Wales/Duke of York) than their given names before they became King.
 
Well whatever name the Prince of Wales decides on, he will make a excellent king when his time comes IMO.


I agree. To quote Tolkien, he will be the "the deep breath before the plunge". After the very long and successful reign of his mother, HMtQ, and before the much anticipated reign of his son, HRHPW, Prince Charles will provide a critical bridge between the old and the new. He will be that middling Monarch who must connect the threads - a task not to be underestimated or relegated to unimportant. The seeds of change and/or continuity will be planted with his actions - it is likely that Charles and William will be the closest of all Monarchs and Heir Apparents in terms of deciding which bits and pieces must stay and which bits and pieces must go. They are in a historically rare position.

The only other Monarch with such longevity as HMtQ was Queen Victoria and it is well reported that she did not share much by way of duties or education with her heir, Edward VII - who only reigned, what, ten years or so.

Given Charles' age he will also not have a long reign, as reigns go, and it will be a matter of necessity to train William over a shorter period of time, thus a more intense participation, I predict.

I am looking forward to Charles' reign. He is, above all else, I believe, a kind and decent man and we could do worse than that in a Monarch. He is a thinking man who, from all evidence, has a genuine interest in making things better - for lack of a more erudite term.
 
I still think that Charles will be King Charles, but I wonder how people would feel if he chose a double-barrel regnal name....King Charles George for instance or dare I say King Charles Philip. King Philip George or maybe King Arthur George............
 
:previous:

That would be a first for Britain, but certainly not impossible. Charles George I doesn't sound too bad to be honest.
However, I would still prefer him to reign under the name he has been known for nearly six decades.

On the other hand, I can understand why would George appeal to him: it's a bit like Denmark with its Christians and Fredericks - about continuity and tradition.
 
I still think that Charles will be King Charles, but I wonder how people would feel if he chose a double-barrel regnal name....King Charles George for instance or dare I say King Charles Philip. King Philip George or maybe King Arthur George............

I never gave it any thought but I do like the sound of these names
 
It has been 463 years since Charles I was executed. I am unaware of the family calling by any of his other names. I think it will be Charles III. I think he will take that one from his mother as in her reply when asked what her regal name will be. "Well Elizabeth of course." Had his grandmother been alive when he ascended to the thrown, George VII would definitely have been a possibility. Based on the health of the Queen, Charles can be looking at ascending somewhere in his 70s.
 
Charles has been "Charles" for 64 years and I don't see him changing it when he takes the throne. I can just see him on a State Occasion being announced as His Majesty King George the VII or some such, and looking around for "George". :ROFLMAO: Seems pretty daft!
 
Dear Patrons of R.F.,
Any person who rules may have the option of choosing their name and title. Often they list their name and are given a title. There is also the possibility that both title and name may be selected for them by another royal or as part of a state ceremony. In any case, a given name at birth may change in childhood or not at all. Titles may do the same. This is clear when you find adults with the title "Infanta ....." in Spain. Obviously an adult is no longer an infant. The most important thing is clear and concise use of name and title. There are so many Charles and George out there as well. Often a royal has a family lineage name, a middle name and the name of a parent. In any case when the correct name is listed, everyone will know it.
 
IMO, I think many people throughout the realms would bust out their best 'side eye' if the Prince of Wales chose a regnal name other than King Charles III.

This.

There is no way I can see it any other way. For him to expect anyone inside or outside his realm to know him as anything but Charles would make him seem to be some sort of aloof, arrogant, silly King. The tradition of changing one's name might not have gone away until recently, but this is an age in which his identity is well cemented, for better or for ill, as Charles (out of all the names his mother gave him, he is known as Charles).

Charles III one day.
 
I still think that Charles will be King Charles, but I wonder how people would feel if he chose a double-barrel regnal name....King Charles George for instance or dare I say King Charles Philip. King Philip George or maybe King Arthur George............

That would be very cool, Charles Philip especially. It would be a little break out for him, and not so disturbing as calling himself William or Harry or George.

Or Richard.
 
I like him as Charles. He does not care what I think, though. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm convinced :)

Charles III, it should be.

Spaniels will be all the vogue again :)


Interesting conversation.
 
Up until Victoria pretty much every English/British (don't know about Scottish so am deliberately writing it this way for a reason) has used their first Christian name as their regnal name but since Victoria it is 50% - Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all used a different name while George V, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II have used their first names.

I do think Charles will be Charles III but I also wouldn't be surprised if he took George VII as his name either. It will be entirely his choice at the time.

Regardless of what his name is officially on documents etc he will still be called Charles by his family.
 
Up until Victoria pretty much every English/British (don't know about Scottish so am deliberately writing it this way for a reason) has used their first Christian name as their regnal name but since Victoria it is 50% - Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all used a different name while George V, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II have used their first names.

I do think Charles will be Charles III but I also wouldn't be surprised if he took George VII as his name either. It will be entirely his choice at the time.

Regardless of what his name is officially on documents etc he will still be called Charles by his family.

Dear Iluvbertie - you are the best. You bring clarity and context to every discussion.
 
If Prince Charles ascends the throne is it possible that the House of Windsor will become the House of Mountbatten, his father's naturalised family name?

I read that Queen Victoria was of the House of Hanover through her father Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. And that her son King Edward VII was of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his father Albert, Prince Consort. Since children usually take the name of their father I'm under the assumption that Charles's accession will bring in the Mountbatten Dynasty.
 
If Prince Charles ascends the throne is it possible that the House of Windsor will become the House of Mountbatten, his father's naturalised family name?

I read that Queen Victoria was of the House of Hanover through her father Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. And that her son King Edward VII was of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his father Albert, Prince Consort. Since children usually take the name of their father I'm under the assumption that Charles's accession will bring in the Mountbatten Dynasty.


In 1960 The Queen issued a change declaring that the House name would remain Windsor while the non-royal grandchildren would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Following that for Charles to take the House name to Windsor would require a declaration from him to overturn his mother's declararation.

In the case of Edward VII there had been no previous declaration of a House name different to the expected name so Edward automatically took the name of his father whereas Charles, if he has a surname at all it is not just Mountbatten but Mountbatten-Windsor of the House of Windsor.
 
Up until Victoria pretty much every English/British (don't know about Scottish so am deliberately writing it this way for a reason) has used their first Christian name as their regnal name but since Victoria it is 50% - Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all used a different name while George V, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II have used their first names.

I do think Charles will be Charles III but I also wouldn't be surprised if he took George VII as his name either. It will be entirely his choice at the time.

Regardless of what his name is officially on documents etc he will still be called Charles by his family.

Charles should be just Charles III.
Nothing else.
The age of using unknown middle names/ancestors' names is over.
Today it is all about how you are noticed and identified by the ordinary Tom, Dick and Harry. And they all have known him as Charles his entire life. So no point in changing now for some ceremonial purpose citing certain archaic superstition.
 
If he is more comfortable being known officially as George VII then he has that right - everyone else is able to change their name if they want to do so and so should he if he is so inclined.
 
In 1960 The Queen issued a change declaring that the House name would remain Windsor while the non-royal grandchildren would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Following that for Charles to take the House name to Windsor would require a declaration from him to overturn his mother's declararation.

In the case of Edward VII there had been no previous declaration of a House name different to the expected name so Edward automatically took the name of his father whereas Charles, if he has a surname at all it is not just Mountbatten but Mountbatten-Windsor of the House of Windsor.

If we talk about dynasties, Charles is a Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg just like the Norwegian king, the Danish queen and the former king of Greece. This dynasty is a cadet branch of the dynasty of Oldenburg, one of the oldest dynasties of Europe.

As for the name of the Royal House, HMN decided that even though her husband came from such a noble dynasty, it should still be the House of Windsor as created in 1917 instead of the "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" as it was before. The main line of Hm, as in Charles, William and William's main line descendants will stay Windsors, as they have Royal rank. All other male-line descendants will eventually be known as Mountbatten-Windsor, because once the Royal dukes' descendants cease to be Royals themselves (like it just happens with the Kents and Gloucesters), they need a surname and this will be Mountbatten-Windsor. Okay, as it is, we will only see James Severn's children fall out of the Royal rank and will carry the name of Lord/Lady christian name Mountbatten-Windsor (apart from the oldest son, who will hold a courtesy title of either father or grandfather), but one day Harry's male-line grandchildren will need a surname and they will be Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsors as well.
 
If Prince Charles ascends the throne is it possible that the House of Windsor will become the House of Mountbatten, his father's naturalised family name?

I read that Queen Victoria was of the House of Hanover through her father Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. And that her son King Edward VII was of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha through his father Albert, Prince Consort. Since children usually take the name of their father I'm under the assumption that Charles's accession will bring in the Mountbatten Dynasty.

Queen Victoria did indeed come from the House of Hanover and was the last Monarch of Hanoverian dynasty. When she married Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, she personally continued to belong to the House of Hanover; however, their children automatically took their father's surname (name of the House), thus establishing the short-lived House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Edward VII was the only King to belong to it because his son, George V, changed the name of the House to Windsor).


As things are now, it is expected that Prince Charles will belong to the House of Windsor upon his accession to the Throne.

That is in accordance with the Letters Patent of 1952, which declared that "I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that my descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor." The declaration of 1960 stated that those of her and Prince Philip's descendants who do not have the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince or Princess will bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. The latter obviously doesn't concern Prince Charles who is both a Prince and a Royal Highness.

However, it should be noted that the dynastic name is entirely at the will of the Sovereign and any future Monarch can change it. Thus, Charles may chose to continue with the House of Windsor (as is expected), or opt to honour his father by changed the name of the Royal House to Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor-Mountbatten, or even go for just Mountbatten.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor#cite_note-5
 
I don't know, Charles George or a similar double name sounds more like a pope's name.
I hope he will be Charles III. Not that an American has a say. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom