Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Iluvbertie]

We also know that George VI and Queen Elizabeth had wanted to name Margaret (I think I am right on which daughter it was) Anne but George V refused to allow them to do so - so when given the chance to have an Anne in the family the Queen chose that name for her daughter - probably knowing that her parents liked the name.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

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

Completely agree. He has been known as Prince Charles for over 65 years, it would make no sense if he chose a regnal name that was different

 

[Marty91charmed]

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.

Thank you! I might be totally wrong but, since I think that Charles will be a modern king and will make his own decisions and thus, he will be "particular" and "on his own" I think he will put a bit of tradition and ancient times behind and will reign as "Charles III"... Just a feeling though...

 

[Curryong]

Well, that's true. There seem to have been an extraordinary number of Georges due to the Hanovarian liking for the name. A lack of imagination, perhaps!

Of course Edward VII would have been Albert Edward if his mother had had her way. I think he made the right choice in plumping for the single name.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

BBC News Frontpage | LATEST BREAKING NEWS mentioned that The Prince of Wales has reportedly considered using the name George when he becomes King. He has discussed ditching the title Charles III.

 

[Countessmeout]

We also know that George VI and Queen Elizabeth had wanted to name Margaret (I think I am right on which daughter it was) Anne but George V refused to allow them to do so - so when given the chance to have an Anne in the family the Queen chose that name for her daughter - probably knowing that her parents liked the name.

Indeed, the Queen Mum wrote to her MIL that she wished to name her second daughter Ann but it got vetoed by the king.

"I am very anxious to call her Ann Margaret, as I think Ann of York sounds pretty, & Elizabeth and Ann go so well together

While I agree, George VII would continue a pattern, I think it will be Charles III. I have a hard time picturing a man who has been Charles for 65 years and counting now, suddenly going by a new name.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Indeed, the Queen Mum wrote to her MIL that she wished to name her second daughter Ann but it got vetoed by the king.



While I agree, George VII would continue a pattern, I think it will be Charles III. I have a hard time picturing a man who has been Charles for 65 years and counting now, suddenly going by a new name.

Charles III does seem the obvious choice. Hopefully Charles Philip Arthur George will be Charles III.

 

[Iluvbertie]

BBC News Frontpage | LATEST BREAKING NEWS mentioned that The Prince of Wales has reportedly considered using the name George when he becomes King. He has discussed ditching the title Charles III.

I believe the first time this possibility was mentioned was in 1948 when his actual name was announced and has been reported continually ever since.

We will know on either his Accession Day itself or the next day (if the actual time of the Accession is late in the day the announcement at the Accession Council will be the next day for logistical reasons only).

 

[Curryong]

I'm sure he will be King Charles III. There have been unconfirmed reports over the years that Charles doesn't really care for his name much, considering it ill-starred (because of the Stuart line presumably.)

I do wonder why it was given to him. A favourite of the Queen Mother's, a nod over the border at the Scottish inheritance, a change from all the Georges?

Nevertheless, he has had it for nigh on seventy years and I can't see him suddenly adopting 'George' as monarch. Everyone will have enough trouble adjusting to a King rather than Queen on the throne without a change of name as well!

 

[Queen Claude]

I know it is a little OT, but does anyone know how long it was after Edward VIII's abdication that it became known that his brother Prince Albert/Bertie had chosen the regnal name George VI?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I'm also pretty sure that he will be King Charles III.

Another thing I've been wondering about lately is whether he will be known as simply the King or King Charles in the UK. Elizabeth II is (because of her very long reign and her iconicness) known as simply the Queen in the UK.

In Norway, the King is best known as King Harald. In Denmark and Sweden, the monarchs are known as both.

 

[Curryong]

The Royal Proclamation declaring Prince Albert rightful sovereign as King George VI is on YouTube. It was December 12th 1946, so straight after the abdication of Edward. (There's always a Proclamation by the Duke of Norfolk and Heralds when a new Monarch comes to the throne.)

 

[Countessmeout]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUbfao5KfR8

The Duke of Norfolk serves as the hereditary earl marshal of the realm and it is his role to proclaim a new monarch.

Here is the queen's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9mHL8CLOC0

The 16th Duke of Norfolk presided over both. When he passed away, his title passed to his second cousin, Miles Fitzalan-Howard, the 17th Duke. It is Miles son, the 18th duke, who will proclaim Charles and possibly William (the current duke is 60).

 

[Denville]

Indeed, the Queen Mum wrote to her MIL that she wished to name her second daughter Ann but it got vetoed by the king.



.

Any reason known why the King vetoed it? It is a royal name, plain and sutiable, so I can't see why he would not like it. Margaret is a nice name too... but it wasn't their first choice.

 

[Curryong]

George V was an elderly gentleman of very firm opinions. He probably just didn't like the name! There's a small chance that he thought 'Anne' unsuitable because of the Stuart connection. On the other hand, did he know that much 17th/18th century British history?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

George V was an elderly gentleman of very firm opinions. He probably just didn't like the name! There's a small chance that he thought 'Anne' unsuitable because of the Stuart connection. On the other hand, did he know that much 17th/18th century British history?

If Anne was too Stuart, recall King George II's eldest daughter was Princess Anne (1709-1759). She became the spouse of William IV, Prince of Orange.

 

[Curryong]

Oh, George wouldn't have known those sort of genealogical details about his family tree, though probably Queen Mary did. He most likely just didn't like the name and that was that! Perhaps he thought she should have been named after Queen Mary, his wife, (ignoring that there had been a Mary Stuart.)

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

No offence, but how did a discussion about Charles' regnal name become about alternate names for princess Margaret (RIP)?

I am personally hoping that he will be King George VII, for two reasons:

1) Prince George will then be George VIII when the time comes,

And

2) the name 'Charles III' reminds me too much of the bad jokes and general nastiness of the bad old days of the war of the waleses

George VII is a fresh start, it's got dynastic continuity, and to me anyway, it sounds much more dignified and regal. Also wasn't Bonnie prince Charlie technically Charles III?

 

[An Ard Ri]

I'm hoping he will become King Charles III!

 

[Osipi]

I'm sticking with my vote for Charles the Green.

(walks off humming "Its Not Easy Being Green".....

 

[duchessrachel]

Any reason known why the King vetoed it? It is a royal name, plain and sutiable, so I can't see why he would not like it. Margaret is a nice name too... but it wasn't their first choice.

This is so interesting. Why would she have asked permission in the first place? Did the Queen Mum suspect that Ann might not be acceptable?

 

[Denville]

I do remember reading that they wanted to choose Ann.. but I cna't remember if the King did not like it...

 

[Denville]

No offence, but how did a discussion abo
2) the name 'Charles III' reminds me too much of the bad jokes and general nastiness of the bad old days of the war of the waleses

George VII is a fresh start, it's got dynastic continuity, and to me anyway, it sounds much more dignified and regal. Also wasn't Bonnie prince Charlie technically Charles III?

it is Charles' name, the one he has always been known by. I dont want him to adopt a name he has never used. And im not sure what it has to do with the War of the Waleses...

 

[Osipi]

I do remember reading that they wanted to choose Ann.. but I cna't remember if the King did not like it...

Did some digging and all I could find is that George V didn't like the name "Anne". No other reasons available that I could see.

I also think that if Charles has been going by his given name for going on close to 70 years, he'd find it odd to use any other name. People would probably have a hard time adjusting to it also. I think he'll leave George in the wings for when his grandson becomes King.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

it is Charles' name, the one he has always been known by. I dont want him to adopt a name he has never used. And im not sure what it has to do with the War of the Waleses...

Charles's full name is Charles Philip Arthur George so technically he has used the name for a long time. The name change has precident: queen Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had differing regnal names from their names they were known by before coming to the throne. There was a conserted effort to get the current queen to take the name 'Mary III' out of sensitivity to Scottish sensibilities. All popes take a different name when they become pope' and taking a different name is in fact, globally, a common Royal practice.

So in my view there would be nothing unusual about Charles as King George VII.

Charles III also is the name of that play that's been about C's early abdication, and reminds me too much of the "will Charles ever be King?!" Tabloid Headlines from back in the day

I also must confess a more selfish reason for wanting George, it's a family name for my family so I like it for those reasons.

Why he can be 'George the Green' when the time comes

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't see an advantage of Charles using George instead of Charles. Almost no one alive will have a living memory of George VI.

He isn't even referred to by his family with a different name so it not like Edward VIII who was David to his family. Charles isn't George to his family. The public knows him as Charles. It isn't going to make the people who don't like him to start to like him if he goes by a different name.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

Oh, George wouldn't have known those sort of genealogical details about his family tree, though probably Queen Mary did. He most likely just didn't like the name and that was that! Perhaps he thought she should have been named after Queen Mary, his wife, (ignoring that there had been a Mary Stuart.)

George V probably didn't know the genealogical details at all, he wasn't known for having been well educated.

His wife definitely was, on the other hand. But I doubt there would have been too much of a push to have Margaret named Mary, as Elizabeth already had it as one of her names (along with Alexandra, for George V's mother).

Margaret actually didn't get any BRF family names, so I'm thinking the Anne veto was more to a personal preference than anything else. I doubt Queen Mary had issue with it, as George VI had no problem with letting his daughter use the name when she had her own daughter (I doubt if Queen Mary had taken issue with using Stuart names, neither Charles nor Anne would have gotten Stuart names).

 

[CyrilVladisla]

No offence, but how did a discussion about Charles' regnal name become about alternate names for princess Margaret (RIP)?

I am personally hoping that he will be King George VII, for two reasons:

1) Prince George will then be George VIII when the time comes,

And

2) the name 'Charles III' reminds me too much of the bad jokes and general nastiness of the bad old days of the war of the waleses

George VII is a fresh start, it's got dynastic continuity, and to me anyway, it sounds much more dignified and regal. Also wasn't Bonnie prince Charlie technically Charles III?

Bonnie Prince Charlie was referred to as King Charles III. However this Charles Stuart was never crowned as a monarch.

 

[Ish]

George VII is a fresh start, it's got dynastic continuity, and to me anyway, it sounds much more dignified and regal. Also wasn't Bonnie prince Charlie technically Charles III?

Bonnie Prince Charlie wasn't "technically" anything. Jacobites may have called him Charles III, but he wasn't a monarch, really he wasn't even a Prince. He was born to a self proclaimed King who was part of a deposed regime. He was never entitled to any titles, and any titles he claimed to have were used in pretence. The Queen and DoE saw no problem with him using the name (and George VI, the Queen Mum, and Queen Mary, who all very likely could have prevented it's being used, didn't stop it).

Charles's full name is Charles Philip Arthur George so technically he has used the name for a long time. The name change has precident: queen Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had differing regnal names from their names they were known by before coming to the throne. There was a conserted effort to get the current queen to take the name 'Mary III' out of sensitivity to Scottish sensibilities. All popes take a different name when they become pope' and taking a different name is in fact, globally, a common Royal practice.

Charles has had the name for his whole life, but he's never gone by it. There is a difference.

And Victoria (who went by Victoria publicly), Edward VII (who had a double barrelled first name), and George VI (who came to the throne under special circumstances), don't really set a precedent. In a thousand years, and more than 80 monarchs, 4 monarchs who did change their name (including Robert III of Scotland) doesn't really make a precedent.

And that it happens in other monarchies doesn't really mean much. First of all, it doesn't really happen in European monarchies, and secondly, even less so in modern European monarchies (the exception tends to be in families where there are strong naming conventions or when a foreigner accepts a throne and changes their name to something that reflects the new home). The papacy is a hugely different type of monarchy, with completely different traditions, and shouldn't be used as a precedent for what the BRF does.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

What name will Charles Philip use?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5TiYJtVvjY