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.
Current polls seem to actually support Charles being king next, not William.

Regardless, the succession is determined by the Succession Act and not any popularity contest.
 
IMHO with the recent threat of his interfering letters about to come out, He may not have that...just as well. A young heir and beautiful fertile wife the people are behind is what the BRF needs, not Charles who is married to a woman that poll after poll does not want as Queen. This board has a determined Queen Camilla faction which is not supported by the numbers on the polls of the actual subjects.

So, lets ignore a thousand years of laws and tradition in order to appease a bunch of people who can't get over the death a woman they never knew?

And this board also has a very determined and generally nasty anti-Camilla faction.
 
IMHO with the recent threat of his interfering letters about to come out, He may not have that...just as well. A young heir and beautiful fertile wife the people are behind is what the BRF needs, not Charles who is married to a woman that poll after poll does not want as Queen. This board has a determined Queen Camilla faction which is not supported by the numbers on the polls of the actual subjects.


Not wanting Camilla to be titled as 'HM The Queen Consort' or 'HM Queen Camilla' is one thing but the polls also clearly show a preference for Charles to be King Charles rather than skip a generation for William.

These are two different things.
 
I would really have to go back and check the article talking about the letters that started this uproar in the first place. IIRC, they were specific letters during a specific time period and dealt with communications pertaining to Charles' charity foundations or such. I don't recall them being named as being interfering letters to ministers on party political or government issues.

Regardless of his letters being made public or not, Charles is the heir to the throne and unless the Act of Succession is changed, he will be King. It just might not look good if some of his political views are revealed.
 
And all of this sound and fury has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name!
 
And all of this sound and fury has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name!

You're absolutely right. I think it kind of got hijacked when it was surmised that Charles may possibly never have the opportunity to choose a regnal name.
 
My long-shot guess would be Louis I.

u think that Prince Charles will reign as "Louis the first", when... infact "Louis" isn't even one of his given names?? i have a better name for him, if he becomes king. King Arthur, of Camelot. U know the story: Sward in the Stone? Yes, that King Arthur... Round Table... Lancelot... u know where i'm going.

if i where Prince Charles... i'd go with eather King Charles III, or King Arthur I.
 
He can't be "of Camelot" as Camelot isn't one of his realms.

If I was him, I wouldn't want to be King Arthur because of the huge bar that sets. Even George sets a high bar.

As Charles he can continue on with who he's been for the last 60+ years though....
 
Not at all. I referred to it as a "long-shot guess". But if he choses Louis or some other name not used before, I would understand why he would do so. He will have a relatively short reign, and therefore it would be a gentle way of beginning his reign with a mark of distinction.

u think that Prince Charles will reign as "Louis the first", when... infact "Louis" isn't even one of his given names?? i have a better name for him, if he becomes king. King Arthur, of Camelot. U know the story: Sward in the Stone? Yes, that King Arthur... Round Table... Lancelot... u know where i'm going.

if i where Prince Charles... i'd go with eather King Charles III, or King Arthur I.
 
Charles will probably come to the throne in his 70:s and he has been called Charles during his whole life so i don't think he wants to be called something else.
But King Arthur I would be cool.
 
I would really have to go back and check the article talking about the letters that started this uproar in the first place. IIRC, they were specific letters during a specific time period and dealt with communications pertaining to Charles' charity foundations or such. I don't recall them being named as being interfering letters to ministers on party political or government issues.

Regardless of his letters being made public or not, Charles is the heir to the throne and unless the Act of Succession is changed, he will be King. It just might not look good if some of his political views are revealed.

It is the letters to government ministers which are at issue which the court just ruled will be made public.
 
He can't be "of Camelot" as Camelot isn't one of his realms.

As Charles he can continue on with who he's been for the last 60+ years though....


Ish - -

i know.... i was just giving an example. :O)
 
Well, if he wanted to establish a bond of continuity with a widely-respected and loved monarch, he could reign as King Elizabeth I. ;)
 
Current polls seem to actually support Charles being king next, not William.

Regardless, the succession is determined by the Succession Act and not any popularity contest.

It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.

In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.
 
It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.

In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.


And the reasons for that decision were simple:

It was believed that it would be too controversial a decision that could see a lot of unrest in the country.

It was also decided that it wasn't for the parliament to overturn a legitimate heir from assuming their rightful place.
 
And the reasons for that decision were simple:

It was believed that it would be too controversial a decision that could see a lot of unrest in the country.

It was also decided that it wasn't for the parliament to overturn a legitimate heir from assuming their rightful place.

In the end, it's Parliament that decides who is the legitimate heir, taking into account all circumstances. This is the lesson of the English Civil War, when Charles I thought he could rule without Parliament, whereas he could not.

Talk of preserving the blood royal is all very attractive, maybe, but the admixture of the consent of Parliament is essential to the existence of The King-in-Parliament.
 
In the end, it's Parliament that decides who is the legitimate heir, taking into account all circumstances. This is the lesson of the English Civil War, when Charles I thought he could rule without Parliament, whereas he could not.

Talk of preserving the blood royal is all very attractive, maybe, but the admixture of the consent of Parliament is essential to the existence of The King-in-Parliament.

The situation we have today is a result of Charles I's actions. When he ruled without parliament - successfully - for many years he was within his rights.

Cromwell also ruled without parliament for a number of years but things changed with the situation that arose in 1688/89 with the Glorious Revolution when Parliament became supreme and decided that there also needed to be a religious qualification in order for a person to be in the line of succession.

Since the passing of the Act of Settlement there hasn't been any legislation that has changed that situation until 2013 and all that will do, when it comes into effect, is allow the first born child to inherit and for them to marry a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of succession.

Parliament has made it clear through their conversations with various monarchs, decisions that have been announced etc made it clear that the line of succession is the one that will be used to determine who is the next monarch and that there is no way they will interfere, unless asked to allow a monarch out of the position - as happened with the abdication - or if the person concerned had committed such a serious criminal offence that they had to be removed for the good of the country.
 
The situation we have today is a result of Charles I's actions. When he ruled without parliament - successfully - for many years he was within his rights.

Cromwell also ruled without parliament for a number of years but things changed with the situation that arose in 1688/89 with the Glorious Revolution when Parliament became supreme and decided that there also needed to be a religious qualification in order for a person to be in the line of succession.

Since the passing of the Act of Settlement there hasn't been any legislation that has changed that situation until 2013 and all that will do, when it comes into effect, is allow the first born child to inherit and for them to marry a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of succession.

Parliament has made it clear through their conversations with various monarchs, decisions that have been announced etc made it clear that the line of succession is the one that will be used to determine who is the next monarch and that there is no way they will interfere, unless asked to allow a monarch out of the position - as happened with the abdication - or if the person concerned had committed such a serious criminal offence that they had to be removed for the good of the country.

This is the beauty of Britain not having a written constitution.

Parliament does ultimately oversee the succession process; usually it does not intervene.

In 1936, Prime Minister Baldwin, at the time of the Abdication Crisis, told his Party's Members of Parliament: Cancel your engagements over the weekend, go to pubs and clubs and listen to what ordinary people are saying. A Parliament that listens to the ingenious ideas of elites behind closed doors and ignores the people is not doing its job.

A good Prime Minister will still wish to be made aware of what public opinion is about any succession issue that might be regarded as problematic.

I don't agree that Charles I was right to try to rule without Parliament. For example, he tried to mint money, without the backing of law. There are centuries of precedent now behind the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ex-officio, is Prime Warden and Master Worker of the Royal Mint, and responsible to Parliament. The same with succession issues: Parliament will scrutinize how its laws are implemented.
 
The Prince of Wales can be King Charles III.
For several years he has had Charles as his first name.
For numerous years the press and reporters have referred to him as Charles.

In The Queen & Her Court, Jerrold M. Packard wrote:

By the by, Prince Charles will in time probably be known as King Charles III, although no law prevents him from using another name as king. :crown:

In H.R.H. The Man Who Will Be King, Tim Heald and Mayo Mohls wrote that Elizabeth and Philip:
had already decided on "Charles" as the boy's first name, for the simple reasons that they liked the sound and wanted to get away from the succession of "Edwards" and "Georges" that had been the unexpected rule for English kings since William IV died in 1837.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.
In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.

Current polls seem to actually support Charles being king next, not William.

Regardless, the succession is determined by the Succession Act and not any popularity contest.
Erm, wrong!

This is the beauty of Britain not having a written constitution.

Parliament does ultimately oversee the succession process; usually it does not intervene.

In 1936, Prime Minister Baldwin, at the time of the Abdication Crisis, told his Party's Members of Parliament: Cancel your engagements over the weekend, go to pubs and clubs and listen to what ordinary people are saying. A Parliament that listens to the ingenious ideas of elites behind closed doors and ignores the people is not doing its job.

A good Prime Minister will still wish to be made aware of what public opinion is about any su0ccession issue that might be regarded as problematic.
Once again, No. The Government did not interfere with the succession in any way. Prime Minister Baldwin and his government were firmly against the King marrying his once divorced and still married lover. He informed the King the Government would resign if he married Wallis.

Baldwin asked Churchill, in Opposition, if he would form a Government should he be called to. Churchill, a staunch supporter of the King, said no.

The King had three choices, marry Wallis and the Government woud resign, give up Wallis and reign, or Abdicate, marry Wallis and leave the country.

History records King Edward VIII's choice.

It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.

In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.
And don't forget the Palace ferretts. Talk is cheap and there was absolutely no way they could have pulled that off. They learnt that the Throne was not up for popular debate.

When King George died there was private, ministerial . . . yada, yada that perhaps Princess Elizabeth was too young to reign and perhaps the Duke of Windsor could become Regent until such time as she was old enough.(Probably when he died!)

History records that outcome of both of those sets of wannabe King Makers. The Act of Settlement takes precedent. It is bigger than any individual Government. It is the history of the Monarchy.

Should HM predecease Prince Charles I believe he will become Charles III because he has been called Charles for over 65 years. If someone called him something else he'd probably be looking over his shoulder for him.
 
From Styles of Address - Meeting the Royal Family - Royal Tours:

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales should never be referred as "Charles, Prince of Wales" or "Prince Charles.”

If this is the case, then when he becomes King he will have to come up with another name.

Although I like the sound of King Charles & Queen Camilla, if he wants to be King George VII then I guess we will have to get use to it.

When he becomes King, some people will probably still be referring to him as the Prince of Wales or Prince Charles.
 
[...] because he has been called Charles for over 65 years. If someone called him something else he'd probably be looking over his shoulder for him.

I think that is no argument. Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio has been called by the same first names for 77 years before he became Pope Franciscus...

:flowers:
 
I think that is no argument. Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio has been called by the same first names for 77 years before he became Pope Franciscus...

:flowers:
But he was unknown to most people. Charles has been in the public eye for all his life
 
Exactly - Charles birth was front page news around the world in 1948 while the Pope, until last year, was virtually unknown outside his native land and even today most people wouldn't know his real name at all.

Charles, on the other hand, has had a number of major life events played out on the world's stage from childhood - e.g. attending his mother's coronation, his own investiture, his schooling in Australia, his time in the military, his wedding, the breakdown of his wedding, his myriad of overseas tours, the second wedding, his son's wedding - all done in the full glare of the world's press. We have seen him grow from new born baby to old age pensioner and all that time he has been 'Charles' or 'Prince Charles'.
 
Everyone knows his first name as Charles. If he took another name, I imagine there would be people who would accidentally call him King Charles.
 
But he was unknown to most people. Charles has been in the public eye for all his life

I agree. It would seem strange to all of us if he went by King George VII (I do believe that this is what he wishes to go by if he had to change his regnal name), and I'll bet lots of us will be saying "now who is King George again?" I personally think he should stick with Charles. Charles III sounds good to me.
 
How completely confusing would it be if he chose "William" as his regnal name :)
 
Well, the theater has decided he will be King Charles III. Anyone planning on going to the play that just opened in England? I see it got a rave review today.
 
It doesn't take long for people to become accustomed to a new name. While I personally believe that The Prince of Wales will choose Charles III, it wouldn't surprise me if he goes with another names, something unique to define what will unfortunately probably be a relatively short reign.

I agree. It would seem strange to all of us if he went by King George VII (I do believe that this is what he wishes to go by if he had to change his regnal name), and I'll bet lots of us will be saying "now who is King George again?" I personally think he should stick with Charles. Charles III sounds good to me.
 
It doesn't take long for people to become accustomed to a new name. While I personally believe that The Prince of Wales will choose Charles III, it wouldn't surprise me if he goes with another names, something unique to define what will unfortunately probably be a relatively short reign.


Yeah. That's why the press and public have completely embraced Kate's married name/titles and don't continue to insist on calling her Kate Middleton.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom