The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 02-22-2014, 10:38 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Ardmore, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I do think it will be King Charles III and Queen Camilla with King William IV and Queen Catherine.
it'll be King William V.
i know that for a fact... Queen Victoria's uncle Was King William IV
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 02-22-2014, 11:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post


And BTW, do you count that as a 'public appearance'? I am not sure.. Did anyone, public or media, barring those inside the cathedral see her? NOOOO
Her 'final public appearance' was recommissioning of HMS Ark Royal in Portsmouth, I believe- atleast the last one I saw on TV/Youtube. SHe apparently attended some races and presented trophies also..

Just a point here - I know this thread is yonks old but as it has come back up I did some re-reading back through the thread and came across this question about The Queen Mum and Margaret's funeral.

Yes she did attend - she is listed in the Court Circular as attending and it was definitely her last official engagement. It should be noted that the CC lists the family of Margaret specifically but not the children of The Queen attending their aunts funeral - it says 'and other members of the royal family' were present while everyone was listed at the funeral of The Queen Mother. I liked the fact that Viscount Linley and his sister were specified above people like Charles etc as they were, of course, Margaret's children.

Another thing I found interesting was how often she changed her lady-in-waiting during the last four weeks or so of her life - about every five days and every time it was listed in the CC.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 02-22-2014, 11:44 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimmers Girl 1983 View Post
it'll be King William V.
i know that for a fact... Queen Victoria's uncle Was King William IV
Yes, third son of George III. Ruled after George IV. Had ten illegitamite children with his long time mistress, but with his wife Queen Adelaide, only two short lived daughters. Was said to have been faithful to his wife, and extremely hard working. Started the tradition of living Buckingham palace, and donated a great deal of art to the nation for public galleries.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 02-23-2014, 12:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Yes, third son of George III. Ruled after George IV. Had ten illegitamite children with his long time mistress, but with his wife Queen Adelaide, only two short lived daughters. Was said to have been faithful to his wife, and extremely hard working. Started the tradition of living Buckingham palace, and donated a great deal of art to the nation for public galleries.
William IV didn't live at BP but stayed at CH throughout his reign.

He went so far as to offer BP to Parliament as a replacement for the Palace of Westminster when it burnt down in 1834.

Victoria was the first monarch to move into BP in 1837.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:40 AM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 655
This is a little late in the discussion but Ish is quite correct when she says -
"As for George, he came to the throne during a crisis. His name choice didn't necessarily reflect his feelings regarding his name but rather a desire to stress the connection with his father."

I believe that it was a deliberate political decision at the time to identify the new king with his father, George V, in an attempt to remind people of the stability of the throne after the chaos and uncertainty and unpopularity of Edward's abdication. Bertie, I suspect, had little choice, and was too overwhelmed by his new role to object.

Charles reportedly said, years ago, that he regards becoming Charles III as 'unlucky'. I really don't understand why - Charles II 'won', as it were, in the end, despite his slack moral character. I suppose that 'our' Charles is thinking of the disarray and civil war of the Stuart years. However, as Juliet said of Romeo:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet

I'd like him to stick with Charles - after all this time I think that it suits him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-22-2014, 01:27 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Ardmore, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Had ten illegitamite children with his long time mistress, but with his wife Queen Adelaide, only two short lived daughters.
i'm still brand new to all of this... :O)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-22-2014, 04:42 PM
Ontario Royalist's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 24
I see no problem at all with Charles III.

My long-shot guess would be Louis I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 03-22-2014, 05:03 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
"Charles III" is considered unlucky because it was the styling used by Charles Stewart, eldest son of the Old Pretender.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 03-22-2014, 05:34 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
"Charles III" is considered unlucky because it was the styling used by Charles Stewart, eldest son of the Old Pretender.
Does this mean the name Charles is off the lists for kings-to-come, because III is unlucky and they can't skip to IV?
I would like it if he'd rule as King Charles, but that's mainly because he's so well known with that name..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 03-22-2014, 05:54 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
They can't skip to IV. If they do that then it implies that Charles Stewart was the III and therefore a rightful ruler.

I don't think this means that Charles isn't allowable as a monarch's name. Obviously, HM and the DoE didn't think it was much of an issue as they chose to name their eldest son Charles, knowing he would one day be monarch.

If memory serves, Charles himself hasn't actually gone on record saying that he doesn't like his name, considers it unlucky, or intends to reign as anything other than Charles. There's been a lot of press speculation about it throughout Charles' life, but he has never said what he plans on doing when it happens - the official stance as of 2005 was "[n]o decision has been made and it will be made at the time."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-22-2014, 07:54 PM
Ontario Royalist's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 24
I don't know who would sincerely consider the name to be "unlucky". This is the kind of stuff that the tabloids like to stir up, but for the average person Charles III would probably seem the logical choice and be accepted for what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee-Z View Post
Does this mean the name Charles is off the lists for kings-to-come, because III is unlucky and they can't skip to IV?
I would like it if he'd rule as King Charles, but that's mainly because he's so well known with that name..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-22-2014, 09:04 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ontario Royalist View Post
I don't know who would sincerely consider the name to be "unlucky". This is the kind of stuff that the tabloids like to stir up, but for the average person Charles III would probably seem the logical choice and be accepted for what it is.
Its been pretty apparent over Charles' lifetime that he is quite a traditionalist so I would really like to see Charles bring back something that's been put to the side for a very long, long time. Heck with the III stuff and bring back the days of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror and choose the regnal name of Charles the Green. Frogs everywhere would be ecstatic (especially the species named after Charles) and perhaps at the coronation Kermit the Frog could sing "Its Not Easy Being Green".

I know I've stated this a few times before but there's folks here that perhaps haven't read the entire thread. On the serious side though, I am willing to bet that he will be known as King Charles III.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-22-2014, 09:50 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ontario Royalist View Post
I don't know who would sincerely consider the name to be "unlucky". This is the kind of stuff that the tabloids like to stir up, but for the average person Charles III would probably seem the logical choice and be accepted for what it is.

Anyone who knows their history, specifically their Scottish history.

Charles Stewart, eldest son of the Old Pretender, was the last Jacobite pretender to really fight for the throne. Charles lead a disastrous campaign against the Hanovers to fight for his throne, ended up fleeing for his life from the battle, and abandoned Scotland to face horrific reprisals from the British for their involvement in the rising. His title, according to Jacobites? Charles III.

I do believe that when his time comes Charles will reign as Charles III, and I think it would be silly of him to change his name at this point - he's been known as Charles for far too long to change it at this point. But I wouldn't blatantly dismiss the idea of the name being unlucky, especially as there does seem to be an indication that the BRF can be a superstitious lot.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-22-2014, 10:00 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its been pretty apparent over Charles' lifetime that he is quite a traditionalist so I would really like to see Charles bring back something that's been put to the side for a very long, long time. Heck with the III stuff and bring back the days of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror and choose the regnal name of Charles the Green. Frogs everywhere would be ecstatic (especially the species named after Charles) and perhaps at the coronation Kermit the Frog could sing "Its Not Easy Being Green".

I know I've stated this a few times before but there's folks here that perhaps haven't read the entire thread. On the serious side though, I am willing to bet that he will be known as King Charles III.


I don't think Charles could give himself a cognomen, those seem to more be nicknames that others (or history) develop.

Even if he did get a cognomen, he would still have a number. William the Conqueror might be commonly known as such, but he's also William I. I'm pretty sure some of the pre-Norman monarchs were numbered as well when names went into duplicates, they're just better known by the cognomens than the numbers. In the post-Norman era, it eventually just became easier to remember the monarchs by their numbers than cognomens because there were so many. I believe it wasn't until Edward III that the numbering became more common - but really, he was the third consecutive Edward, so the numbering would have just made it easier to remember, although I do wonder what some of the post-Edward III would have been known as had the idea continued.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-22-2014, 11:50 PM
Ontario Royalist's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 24
Apparently I have, and will continue to blatantly do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
But I wouldn't blatantly dismiss the idea of the name being unlucky,
If that's the case, then let's hope that nothing will manifest in the sky on coronation day.
Quote:
especially as there does seem to be an indication that the BRF can be a superstitious lot.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 03-23-2014, 04:50 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 973
If he does go with a cognomen, I would suggest "Charles the Patient" because he waited such a long time to become king
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 03-23-2014, 05:16 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
And may have another 20 years to go if his grandmother is any indicator!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 03-23-2014, 05:54 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
And may have another 20 years to go if his grandmother is any indicator!
Although 20 years is kind of stretching it, another 10-12 years is very much possible. Charles is a man that has lived all his adult life as the heir to the throne and actually had to carve out a role as Prince of Wales for himself. In my eyes, he's done a very fine job of things and has accomplished far more than perhaps any PoW before him. In the history books of the future, I think more will be written and remembered about Charles' time as the heir (excluding the drama of his private life) rather than his time as the King. With this in mind, I think should he choose a different regnal name such as George or Louis or Kermit, it would become an identity that might have people in the future scratching their heads and saying "Who?" rather than a name that would resonate his reign and lifetime service to the Crown.

IMO, Charles' reign will not be a long one but more of a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William VI.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 03-23-2014, 09:04 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Although 20 years is kind of stretching it, another 10-12 years is very much possible. Charles is a man that has lived all his adult life as the heir to the throne and actually had to carve out a role as Prince of Wales for himself. In my eyes, he's done a very fine job of things and has accomplished far more than perhaps any PoW before him. In the history books of the future, I think more will be written and remembered about Charles' time as the heir (excluding the drama of his private life) rather than his time as the King. With this in mind, I think should he choose a different regnal name such as George or Louis or Kermit, it would become an identity that might have people in the future scratching their heads and saying "Who?" rather than a name that would resonate his reign and lifetime service to the Crown.

IMO, Charles' reign will not be a long one but more of a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William VI.
I remember back before Charles married. People were freaked out that he was as old as he was and not working on an heir. And as I remember it, he struggled with carving out a role for himself. Which is not to say that his mother did not also struggle with his role as well.
In hindsight, he did his children a favor by waiting to marry, and by giving them the room to marry in their own time. He, of all people, could understand the weight that waiting and place-holding carries. I give him a lot of credit for that.
__________________
“The two important things I did learn were that you are as powerful and strong as you allow yourself to be, and that the most difficult part of any endeavor is taking the first step, making the first decision"Robyn Davidson
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 03-23-2014, 10:47 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
IMO, Charles' reign will not be a long one but more of a transitional reign between Elizabeth II and William VI.
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Monarchy under Charles hofburg British Royals 1877 08-27-2014 11:16 PM
Ruling Family of Abu Dhabi: Al Nahyan dynasty 2: August 2011 - dazzling Ruling Family of Abu Dhabi 215 08-03-2014 03:11 AM
Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name Madame Royale The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 220 04-15-2014 03:56 AM
Queen Elizabeth II and Duke of Edinburgh current events 24: July 2011-June 2 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 916 06-03-2012 08:03 AM
The Prince of Wales & The Duchess of Cornwall visit Denmark; March 24-27, 2012 Viv Royal House of Denmark 338 04-04-2012 03:41 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:25 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]