Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[padams2359]

Can some name one King or Queen of Great Britain who ascended to the throne as heir apparent or presumptive using any other name but the one that they were known as through most of their lives besides? I don't mean family nick names. There were very extenuating circumstances surrounding George VI, he was never suppose to be king, and Queen Victoria never went by Alexandrina. Yes, I am sure in the last 1000 years someone could come up with something, so can we limit it to say, the last 200 or 300.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Edward VII - was officially known as HRH The Prince Albert Edward, The Prince of Wales - and even sometimes official as just The Prince Albert, The Prince of Wales but chose to reign as Edward VII.

He is the most obvious one besides George VI.

 

[Ish]

Can some name one King or Queen of Great Britain who ascended to the throne as heir apparent or presumptive using any other name but the one that they were known as through most of their lives besides? I don't mean family nick names. There were very extenuating circumstances surrounding George VI, he was never suppose to be king, and Queen Victoria never went by Alexandrina. Yes, I am sure in the last 1000 years someone could come up with something, so can we limit it to say, the last 200 or 300.

George VI reigned under his last name, George, instead of the one he'd been known as throughout his life, Albert.

His mother, while not a regent, also changed her name upon becoming Queen. Previously she'd always formally been Victoria Mary (and informally May); it was decided that as Queen Consort she should only use one name.

Edward VII had been Albert Edward prior to his mother's death, with the expectation (on her part) that all subsequent male monarchs would be Albert Something. Edward disagreed and dropped his father's name from his own upon becoming king.

Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria prior to her reign and it was initially expected that she would reign as such. However she chose to simply be Victoria on the first day of her reign. If memory serves, her full name was only used officially previously; she'd been called Drina as a young child, but went by Victoria pretty exclusively prior to her reign.

George I and George II both used double barreled names in Germany prior to their acensions (George Louis and George Augustus, respectively).

If memory serves, Robert III of Scotland was born John Stewart, but chose to change his name on his accession. Robert had positive, familial associations (his father and great-grandfather being the II and I of that name), while John was associated with John Balliol.

And that is, I believe, all the name changes in 1,000 years of English/Scottish/British history, although most have occurred in the last 300 years.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But he was unknown to most people. Charles has been in the public eye for all his life

But that was not the argument I responded to. That argument was he has been called so long with his name, that he would look over his shoulder when he is called with another name. Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio was in exact the same situation: he has never ever been called "Francisco" his whole life.

By the way, there is no risk that Charles will look over his shoulder because he is never addressed with his old or his new name. It is always and ever "Your Royal Highness" or "Sir". And as King he will be "Your Majesty" or "Sir". No matter the name he uses.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually Charles is often called by his name for instance his siblings and cousins are more likely to call him Charles or some other name and his sons call him Papa or Dad or Father or something else so those who would actually be calling him by his name would be the ones closest to him. Can you really see Anne calling her brother Your Royal Highness rather than Charles?

There is a difference for someone who has only ever had a public name - well known and used in public compared to someone who very late in life decided to use a different name publicly.

Charles has been called Charles regularly by the public - particularly on walkabouts rather than the more formal Your Royal Highness etc. Francis has only recently decided to be called by that name.

If they were together in the street the public would call out both Charles and Francis rather than Jorge and expect the pope to respond just as Charles has always has responded to Charles from the crowds.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Actually Charles is often called by his name for instance his siblings and cousins are more likely to call him Charles or some other name and his sons call him Papa or Dad or Father or something else so those who would actually be calling him by his name would be the ones closest to him. Can you really see Anne calling her brother Your Royal Highness rather than Charles?

There is a difference for someone who has only ever had a public name - well known and used in public compared to someone who very late in life decided to use a different name publicly.

Charles has been called Charles regularly by the public - particularly on walkabouts rather than the more formal Your Royal Highness etc. Francis has only recently decided to be called by that name.

If they were together in the street the public would call out both Charles and Francis rather than Jorge and expect the pope to respond just as Charles has always has responded to Charles from the crowds.

Of course the Prince will always remain Charles for his family and the people with which the Prince is on first-names-terms. Like King George VI always remained 'Bertie' for his mother, his siblings and other close family. I can not imagine that people would address him publicly as "Charles" but apparently this happens, I understand. Well, I hope that he will become Charles III indeed.

The Stuarts are a most interesting period in the British royal history and I think that a Charles III will be a nice reference to Charles I and Charles II, no matter the unhappy end of the first Charles. Prince Philip and Princess Elizabeth have given their baby the name Charles and I think they did it with purpose. Choosing Charles would also honour the choice his parents once made.

 

[Lumutqueen]

By the way, there is no risk that Charles will look over his shoulder because he is never addressed with his old or his new name. It is always and ever "Your Royal Highness" or "Sir". And as King he will be "Your Majesty" or "Sir". No matter the name he uses.

I've met him, informally at an engagement, the conversation went as such;

"Hello, Your Highness"
"Hello, it's nice to meet you"
"Thank you for coming today, you've had good weather"
"Yes Camilla mentioned the weather was going to change when we got here"
"It's lovely to meet you, thank you for talking to me Charles"
"You're welcome dear"

He moved on, and several other people mentioned Charles in their conversations and a lot of people shouted Charles and Camilla.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I've met him, informally at an engagement, the conversation went as such;

"Hello, Your Highness"
"Hello, it's nice to meet you"
"Thank you for coming today, you've had good weather"
"Yes Camilla mentioned the weather was going to change when we got here"
"It's lovely to meet you, thank you for talking to me Charles"
"You're welcome dear"

He moved on, and several other people mentioned Charles in their conversations and a lot of people shouted Charles and Camilla.

Interesting that people go on first-name-terms with the future King while they would never do so in job applications, formal talks, in a court case or when the president of a company asks something. I know that in some cultures there is the idea that there are no limits. On the continent, especially in Germany, France, Italy, Spain a correct form is very appreciated. In these languages (also in Dutch and Scandinavian languages) there is also a difference in a formal You and an informal You. For an example Vous/Sie (formal) and Tu/Du (informal) in French and German. When you have reached the stage that you can call people with first name and the informal You, then you have been allowed in their more close eenvironment. It is an unwritten but very important line you better not cross not to harm your position or career. In my ears it sounds very weird to say Charles, or Elizabeth, or Philip or Juan Carlos directly in their face.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Interesting that people go on first-name-terms with the future King while they would never do so in job applications, formal talks, in a court case or when the president of a company asks something. I know that in some cultures there is the idea that there are no limits. On the continent, especially in Germany, France, Italy, Spain a correct form is very appreciated. In these languages (also in Dutch and Scandinavian languages) there is also a difference in a formal You and an informal You. For an example Vous/Sie (formal) and Tu/Du (informal) in French and German. When you have reached the stage that you can call people with first name and the informal You, then you have been allowed in their more close eenvironment. It is an unwritten but very important line you better not cross not to harm your position or career. In my ears it sounds very weird to say Charles, or Elizabeth, or Philip or Juan Carlos directly in their face.

I agree that the topic is fascinating. There is a PHD thesis in here for a number of communication/anthology/international management/social sci majors.
I know that, in the US, this is interesting territory. Your interviewer may well be on tenterhooks to assess when you will attempt intimacy - too early, too late, just right? When interviewing entry level candidate we will toss out first names to see if the candidate uses them. At more senior levels we will expect and assess how/when the candiate starts to use first names.
If you know it is a game, it amuses.

 

[Ontario Royalist]

Needless to say, members of the Royal Family are adept at taking these things in stride - just because people make all sorts of gaffs or try to gratify themselves for one reason or another by overly forward/familiar, doesn't mean that it's proper and that it should be emulated.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think that Charles will become Charles the Third, the most important reason for me is that back in 1948 Prince Philip and Princess Elizabeth have chose that name for their firstborn and heir. That was a deliberate choice and undoubtedly the parents will have been aware about the two Kings with that name in the history of the British monarchy.

Last year the Netherlands welcomed a new King. In the television interview before the Investiture the then Prince of Orange made clear he would be King Willem-Alexander. Not King Willem IV or King Willem IV Alexander. He stressed that Willem-Alexander is his given name, that is how people know him all his life and he saw no reason to change it at all.

It is very well possible that the Prince of Wales has exact the same idea as his (then) Dutch colleague on this topic. Charles the Third, it sounds great. It links to Don Carlos III de Borbón y Farnese, King of Spain, King of Naples and Sicily, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (1716-1788) widely seen as one of the best Kings of Spain ever, promoting science and university research, facilitating trade and commerce, modernizing agriculture and avoiding wars. May Carlos III be a great example for Charles III !

 

[AdmirerUS]

Charles III, for many of you seems to be a non-starter, because, as acknowledged on other threads, Charles as a regnal name has bad issues from the past.
Does anyone know the story behind Elizabeth naming Prince Charles as she did? She probably never disclosed this, but I thought I would ask.

 

[Mbruno]

I think that Charles will become Charles the Third, the most important reason for me is that back in 1948 Prince Philip and Princess Elizabeth have chose that name for their firstborn and heir. That was a deliberate choice and undoubtedly the parents will have been aware about the two Kings with that name in the history of the British monarchy.

Last year the Netherlands welcomed a new King. In the television interview before the Investiture the then Prince of Orange made clear he would be King Willem-Alexander. Not King Willem IV or King Willem IV Alexander. He stressed that Willem-Alexander is his given name, that is how people know him all his life and he saw no reason to change it at all.

It is very well possible that the Prince of Wales has exact the same idea as his (then) Dutch colleague on this topic. Charles the Third, it sounds great. It links to Don Carlos III de Borbón y Farnese, King of Spain, King of Naples and Sicily, Duke of Parma and Piacenza (1716-1788) widely seen as one of the best Kings of Spain ever, promoting science and university research, facilitating trade and commerce, modernizing agriculture and avoiding wars. May Carlos III be a great example for Charles III !

There was a rumor a couple of years ago that Charles would rather be known as George VII, as opposed to Charles III.

Anyway, we don't know yet if Charles will even be king one day, much less what his regnal name will be.

 

[Lee-Z]

Imo P.Charles' way of working and mindset are long established and won't change much after he becomes king.
His ways are very different from the previous english kings Charles (I&II) and therefore imo it would be good if he *did* take Charles III as his regnal name, to sort of neutralize the name and make it acceptable again as a king's name (if you know what i mean..)

It might have been different had P.Charles become king at a very young age, but now any comparisons to the first two Charlesses will be informative from a historical point of view (and maybe an entertainment PoV) but not more than that

 

[Arrjann]

He really should become Charles III. It would be strange to call him differently, especially since for almost 70 years, everyone knows him as Charles. I know it has been done before (most recently his grandfather Albert, who became George VI), but in these times, it would be an odd move for Charles to reign under another name.

 

[Marty91charmed]

Has he ever said anything on the matter? To me it would be fine if he chose to remain Charles... If he would change his name it would be odd for a while but then I think I would get used to it....

 

[Alison H]

Does anyone know the story behind Elizabeth naming Prince Charles as she did? She probably never disclosed this, but I thought I would ask.

I always think it's interesting that she chose the names Charles and Anne, both Stuart names. Anne at least has positive connotations, but Charles doesn't ... OK, Charles II was popular, but the name's also associated with both Charles I and Bonnie Prince Charlie. Maybe it was a nod to the Queen Mother's Scottish ancestry! AFAIK, nothing's ever been said about why the name Charles was chosen.

I hope he'll be Charles III. I couldn't get used to thinking of him as George, or anything else for that matter!

 

[Skippyboo]

Bertie used George to link his reign with that of his father George V. It made sense to do that since the old King had died less than a year before.

For Charles to change his name after 60 plus year waiting for the throne doesn't make sense. Most of the country have had no other monarch than Elizabeth.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Roslyn]

Imo P.Charles' way of working and mindset are long established and won't change much after he becomes king.
His ways are very different from the previous english kings Charles (I&II) and therefore imo it would be good if he *did* take Charles III as his regnal name, to sort of neutralize the name and make it acceptable again as a king's name (if you know what i mean..)

It might have been different had P.Charles become king at a very young age, but now any comparisons to the first two Charlesses will be informative from a historical point of view (and maybe an entertainment PoV) but not more than that

I totally agree with you. Avoiding the use of Charles as a regnal name merely because of echoes from the long past gives those echoes more importance and power than the man who has worn the name for over 60 years and is identified by it. Let him and his name move forward and the name will acquire new connotations during his reign.

 

[Osipi]

I am inclined to believe even more now that Charles will reign as Charles III mainly because there's an up and coming King George in the family.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time comes.

 

[cepe]

I am inclined to believe even more now that Charles will reign as Charles III mainly because there's an up and coming King George in the family.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens when the time comes.

Young George is not a reason not to use the name. We had 3 George's in a row. Then there is continuity: George V; Edward; George VI; Elizabeth; George VII; William; George VIII.

I still think it will be Charles III - but the pattern of George's above has me wondering

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't see what advantage is gained by a late sixty to seventy old Charles to change his name. If he used George, almost know one would be alive who remembers George VI's as their King. More people will probably think of Colin Firth than the actual George VI.

He has waited a long time why lose your identity by using a different name. It's not like he has ever used a different name privately.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Charles III, for many of you seems to be a non-starter, because, as acknowledged on other threads, Charles as a regnal name has bad issues from the past.
Does anyone know the story behind Elizabeth naming Prince Charles as she did? She probably never disclosed this, but I thought I would ask.

The question why Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip named their son Charles was a top of conversation when they announced the news at his christening.
Elizabeth's only statement on the matter was that she liked the name.
​

 

[crm2317]

Personally speaking I would be disappointed if he didn't reign as King Charles. He is known now throughout the commonwealth as Prince Charles, it makes no sense to change his name when he becomes king.

 

[AdmirerUS]

The question why Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip named their son Charles was a top of conversation when they announced the news at his christening. Elizabeth's only statement on the matter was that she liked the name.

Thank you so much. Sharp memories and kindnesses like this are just two reasons I love the Forums.

I'm plumping for Charles III as well.

 

[Ana Von Cleves]

His Majesty, King Charles III

He will be His Majesty King Charles III. There I have said it so it must be so, LOL.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Has he ever said anything on the matter? To me it would be fine if he chose to remain Charles... If he would change his name it would be odd for a while but then I think I would get used to it....

He has never publicly said anything on the matter. There have been unconfirmed reports that he has discussed this matter with family and friends.


It would actually be seen as very bad taste and totally out of line for him to publicly express a view on any issue relating to his accession, including his regnal name.

I suspect that the push for George VII would have come from his grandmother as an acknowledgement of her beloved husband and I wouldn't have been surprised that if he had succeeded during her lifetime or shortly after her passing if he had taken George VII but now I am not so sure.

 

[Skippyboo]

I wonder if the Queen pushed for Princess Elizabeth to name the baby George when he was born and Philip argued for Charles?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

I wonder if the Queen pushed for Princess Elizabeth to name the baby George when he was born and Philip argued for Charles?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

When Charles was born his grandfather was still alive. He was given two of George VI's names - in both cases their last given names are Arthur George. I actually think it's more of a surprise that Edward doesn't have any of his maternal grandfather's names, as Andrew's second given name is Albert.

 

[Curryong]

I do think it is more likely that Charles and Anne were a nod to the Queen Mother's Scottish heritage, though I have no proof.

The Bowes Lyons were Stuart adherents even if they didn't come out in full support of Bonnie Prince Charlie in 1745. The Earl Strathmore of the day ordered the burning of Butcher Cumberland's bed after he had spent a night at the castle.

The Queen Mother would have grown up with all the Stuart legends and imparted them to her daughters.