The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/charles-as-king-choice-of-regnal-name-32617.html)

Madame Royale 04-25-2008 09:16 AM

Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name
 
I just hope he'll be known as Charles III!

PrinceOfCanada 04-25-2008 02:25 PM

Quote:

I just hope he'll be known as Charles III!
Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

Jo of Palatine 04-25-2008 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 758559)
Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

Better look who would have been Charles III....:flowers:

Madame Royale 04-25-2008 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 758559)
Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

You don't know that, and there's no reason he shouldn't. It is his name, and being known as 'George' will only encouraged the eccentric illustration of a man which has haunted him for a number of years now. To be known by any other name would be rediculous, in this day and age anyhow.

And if he is of a superstitious mind, then he should perhaps rethink his position (at the time) as Supreme Governor of the Church of England because as we all know, superstition can't exist if you are a true believer of faith.

As for wikipedia? Hardly a source of reliable truth's.

Charles III he should be, though if he decides otherwise, I think this will imprint the image of a weak man on the minds of many (not least of all myself), who is scared to even use his own name for sake of association with Monarch's of an entirely different nature and era.

The Queen named her son Charles, and he should honour that.

love_cc 04-25-2008 07:39 PM

I don't agree that Prince Charles used George VII showed his weak character. Deciding what name is Prince Charles's own decision, I cannot see other people to tell him what name he should use. Moreoever there is no public record to show that he said he would use King Charles III or King George VI. All others are speculations. We have to wait until that minute to know the answer.

Now I prefer King Charles III because of C&C, years ago I tended to believe that Prince Charles will use King George VII as I saw the similar lines between King Edward VII and him. In general, Prince Charles can use whatever name he likes, just like Bertie chosed Edward VII instead of Albert, so did Beritie used George VI instead of Albert. It is his decision and his decision only.

Prince Charles may choose King George VI to honour his grandfather since he shows a lot of warmths in his relationships with Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Madame Royale 04-25-2008 07:50 PM

His own person? Well, in current day society that's generally established by the use of one's own name. To be known as Charles from infancy only to abandon what is a perfectly sound and regal name upon his succession has no sense to it. No sense at all. And it would really be a dishonour to his parents who named him. As for honouring his grandfather? Build a momument! And if he shared such a warm relationship with his old granny, why not honour her and be known as Elizabeth III. I mean really.

Sure, his forbearers chose the name George, but what is Charles, a sheep? I see not how changing his name makes him his own person. Infact, by all logical thought, it doesn't.

PrinceOfCanada 04-25-2008 08:02 PM

Quote:

The Queen named her son Charles, and he should honour that.
And Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina. I fail to see your point.

Madame Royale 04-25-2008 08:11 PM

I'd expect no less...

She was, since childhood, formally styled HRH Princess Victoria of Kent. It remained that the english had become far too familiar with it and changing her name (though considered for a time) was seen undesirable.

A good lesson for a wandering princely ideal!

love_cc 04-25-2008 08:15 PM

how about Beritie for King Eward VII and Bertie for King George VI?
Prince Charles has many ways to honour his parents. I don't think his name during his reign must be one of it. If he picked up George VII, he just followed the example of King Eward VII. The historians have explantions for King Eward VII's decision and future historians will have their explanations for Prince Charles's decision.

Madame Royale 04-25-2008 08:19 PM

Follow the example? That's hardly being one's own person, now is it.

Quote:

King George VI
Albert chose George, to emphasise contunuity with the reign of his father and restore confidence in the establishment. A decision I can understand when one think's about the circumstances of the day.

LadyCat 04-25-2008 10:23 PM

Okay, I'm confused. I thought Albert "Bertie"- Victoria's son - reigned as Edward VII and his son Georgie - 2nd son of Bertie and Alexandra - (1st son Albert Victor "Eddy" died prior to Bertie's reign) reigned as George VI.

Cat

wbenson 04-25-2008 10:50 PM

Georgie was George V, not George VI.

Madame Royale 04-25-2008 10:51 PM

George V was the second son of Edward VII and Alexandra.

George VI was the second son of George V and Mary.

LadyCat 04-25-2008 11:07 PM

I think what confused me most was all the "Bertie" references. In a family notorious for nicknames and giving several members of each generation the same name, it is hard to keep it all straight.

And you are entirely correct - I goofed on which George was the son of Bertie (Edward VII) and Alexandra - it was George V.

Cat

Keystone 10-14-2010 01:02 AM

I think that a King "George VII of England" (the regnal title I expect Charles to take) should look to Juan Carlos of Spain as a model to emulate. I think under "George VII" there may be a move to codify the English constitution, Scotland may succeed (and hopefully Wales too), many Commonwealth countries may go republican, and "George VII" will have an opportunity to recast the monarchy in England from an "Imperial" monarchy to one more in line with the Spanish or Scandinavian examples.... streamlined court, less excessive pomp or fuddy duddyness, yet while honoring those aspects of hereditary monarchy that do play a role in a democratic nation.

I think he can best let his sentiments be known by the causes he patronizes, rather then becoming a spokesman... which may conflict with his constitutional duties. The King of Spain does have opinions that on occasion he lets be known in public, and he does vote in referendums (and maybe in elections, this I don’t know for sure.) But he has tact to know the difference when to speak his mind and when not to.

I like Charles, and hope his wife becomes queen of England. I think he will do a great job, but it may be temptious as England will be going through many changes during his kingship.

Madame Royale 10-14-2010 03:47 AM

I'm curious as to why you should expect him to take the regnal name George?

He was but a child when his grandfather died, so hardly enough time to form a personal bond was established. What he knows of his grandfather would have come from his grandmother I should suspect, and although the two were particularly close that's still no reason to change his name.

Doing so would not be recieved with very much understanding I should think. A lot of rolling of the eyes and sighs perhaps, but that's about it.

Theres no reason why he should be known as anything other than the name with which he has been known his entire life.

Lumutqueen 10-14-2010 04:12 AM

I expect him to be King Charles.

muriel 10-14-2010 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147207)
...Scotland may succeed (and hopefully Wales too)...

I was keen to understand why you supported the break-up of the United Kingdom. Also, how do you link nationalist movements in Scotland and Wales to the crown?

Keystone 10-14-2010 04:56 AM

As for Charles regnal name... its simple really. His name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

Charles needs to recast his image once he becomes king, and there will be no better opportunity then when he does ascend the throne.


Despite being known as Charles... in truth it is an inauspicious name for English royalty. See Charles I and Charles II, not good precedents at all. Charles I was the strong proponant for absolute right, struggled with parliament to the point he brought down the monarchy and was executed. Charles II was known as the "Merrie Monarch, in reference to both the liveliness and hedonism" of his court. Our Prince Charles probably has had enough associations with hedonistic pleasures for seemingly selfishly (seemingly because I do not think he is selfish, Camilla was the love of his life) "abandoning" Diana in favor of an affair with Camilla. The press can too easily draw paralles between the two no matter had hard Charles and Camilla work for the public good, Charles' beliefs will be seen as outside of the mainstream.


The last King Phillip of England was the consort of Queen Mary I. An unlikely choice.


Arthur is too mistical... and clearly ment to associate the king of England with Arthur of legand. Every English monarch has born that name since the Tudors, IIRC. No English king can live up to the legands of Arthur.



George has far better associations. By choosing the regnal name George, he somewhat links his reign with that of his grandfather George VI. Charles as "George VII" can assert a new image for himself, divorced from the playboy image he had as Prince Charles.

I'm not for the break-up of the United Kingdom, just a truncating of it to just... the United Kingdom of England. And I like Charles alot.

I would restore a Welsh monarchy for Wales, and for Scotland a restored Stewart dynast. Otherwise, I would Wales and Scotland were independent republics.

muriel 10-14-2010 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147258)
I'm not for the break-up of the United Kingdom, just a truncating of it to just... the United Kingdom of England. And I like Charles alot.

I would restore a Welsh monarchy for Wales, and for Scotland a restored Stewart dynast. Otherwise, I would Wales and Scotland were independent republics.

`
Why do you support separate kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises