Naming Customs of British Royalty, Favourite Name, Regnal Name and Numeration

[iowabelle]

I believe Richard III's queen was Anne Neville, so she beats out Anne Boleyn as the first Anne. Oops, I just read about Anne of Bohemia, I agree, she's No. 1.

[Marsel]

All those, who corrected me about the name "Anne" - you are all perfectly right, thank you for pointing out the unfortunate error in the list.
After a little more research, it becomes apparent that Anne was a popular choice for Royal names (not necessarily the first one) from the times of William the Conqueror.
It seemed especially popular with the illegitimate daughters for a while.

[iowabelle]

But you have to admit, the first two Queen Annes have been forgotten by most of us. Anne Boleyn was a tremendously forceful personality...

[Marsel]

I think Anne Boleyn could easily be called one of the most memorable Queen Consorts England/Britain ever had. She was also the most powerful one and gave birth to one of the greatest British Monarchs.
All that is quite remarkable for a woman who came from a relatively modest (for a Queen Consort) background and was a Queen for such a short time.

[orb and sceptre]

I believe we've gotten to a very interesting point in history where the ominpresent media will force monarchs to use the name they are commonly addressed by as their regnal name; I doubt Prince Charles or Prince William will easily be referred to as King George or King Edward. That said, I don't think that will even be an issue, as very few British monarchs have chosen a different regnal name.

[Osipi]

I, also, would like to see a King Charles III. I just think the double Cs of Charles and Camilla roll musically off the tongue.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by orb and sceptre

I believe we've gotten to a very interesting point in history where the ominpresent media will force monarchs to use the name they are commonly addressed by as their regnal name; I doubt Prince Charles or Prince William will easily be referred to as King George or King Edward.

This is my thought about Charles attempting to become George VII. Even if he does it, I don't think very many people will call him that. He's been known as Charles to the world for six decades now, and he's been more visible than Edward VII was (and he had the benefit of being known by two names in at least some instances and just dropping one of them off). If Charles really intended on taking the name of George VII and having it succeed, he should have started working George into his public persona a very long time ago.

[Dierna23]

1. Gabriella Marina Alexandra Ophelia
2. Alexandra Helen Elizabeth Olga Christabel
3. Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David
4. Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by carlota

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary
Charles Philip Arthur George
William Arthur Philip Louis
Beatrice Elizabeth Mary
Eugenie Victoria Helena
Birgitte Eva
Rose Victoria Brigitte Louise

My favourites.
I hope one day there will be an Eleanor or Adelaide somewhere.


btw Harry is missed of the main list at the start.

Henry Charles Albert David.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It isn't a given that he would use Charles and considering how vilified he has been as Prince Charles at times it is possible that he might opt for a new beginning.

Too forsake the name which has also seen him through the hardships, as well as confront them, would be a rather poignant action to take.

It isn't certain, this is true, though to be known by anything other than the name which has served him these past 60th years, would I'm sure be considered quite the eccentric reformation. Especially in this day and age.

Charles seems to me the only logical choice. Philip would be out of the question I'd endeavour to suggest, the use of George makes little reasonable sense and as for a 'King Arthur'? Well, unless he plans on having a round table carved its probably advisable that he leaves that one for the story books.

Charles he has been, Charles he is and Charles he should remain.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

We will have to wait and see but since 1837 there have been six monarchs - Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II and it is 50% who have reigned under their given name and 50% who haven't (Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all used a name other than their first given name).

Victoria had always gone as Victoria, though. Her parents had Alexandrina imposed on them IIRC, and they never really used it.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Victoria had always gone as Victoria, though. Her parents had Alexandrina imposed on them IIRC, and they never really used it.

She was called 'Drina' for quite some time so there was certainly a time when she wasn't referred to, even privately as Victoria.

She chose to use a name other than her given first name - that was my point, regardless of what she, or the others were called in private, 50% of the last 6 monarchs have opted to use a regnal name other than the name they were baptised.

By your calculations I can make a better statistical analysis as only Victoria has actually reigned using the name by which she was known in the family at the time of her accession.

Edward VII - was Bertie
George V - was Georgie
Edward VIII - was David
George VI - was Bertie
Elizabeth II - was Lilibet

There is no reason why they couldn't have ruled using these names but they didn't, they chose their regnal name and Charles will also get the chance to make that same decision.

He may stick with Charles. He may decide on George or Philip or Arthur or Zonko for that matter - yes I am being frivolous with that last one but the point is - it is his decision and his alone.

[Lumutqueen]

I'm sorry I have to disagree. Queen Lilibet, King Bertie. Hardly gives an era of presence and importance does it. The could not have reigned under those names if they wished to be taken at all seriously. But I agree it is Charles' choice, but I do believe he will stick with Charles.

[lac2003]

I like the idea of Charles honoring his grandfather, or more to his way of thinking, the husband of his beloved grandmother, by taking the title King George VII.
The problem would come up when people started to look back at the previous George's and they hit good old, George IV. The potential for Caroline/Diana comparisons to be made probably rules out George VII, IMHO.
Let's be honest, Charles isn't going to be on the throne for long, so whatever name he chooses will only reign briefly.
More likely the British will be proclaiming Long Live William IV or Henry IX.

[Iluvbertie]

I always love it when people say Charles won't rule for long when he has the long-lived genes of his parents in him and he has looked after himself health-wise all his life.

I can easily see him reigning for 20 years or more i.e. no matter how old his mother is when she passes that he lives to be at least that old.

William and Harry have been far less healthy in their lifestyle and I see them, like many of their generation, not living as long as their father will.

Just my opinion but I do see Charles living well into his 90s meaning a reign of 20 or so years is possible. I don't regard that as a short reign. His grandfather's reign was 15 years and that isn't regarded as all that short and Charles will, I feel sure, unless his mother lives to 110 or so, make 15 years on the basis that he is 22.5 years younger than his mother and therefore should live at least to the same age as her, and considering his father is still going strong (sort of) there is no reason to think that he mightn't even pass his mother's age as he has taken just as good care of his health as she has.

[lac2003]

I was just basing the idea that Charles won't rule for long because the Windsor men haven't been known for their longevity. Also, when the last 2 50-year + reigns ended, there's been a "rapid" turnover in the next few reigns. George III was followed by George IV and William IV in rapid succession (so that actually William will be William V if/when he succeeds to the throne, contrary to my post yesterday) and then Victoria's heir Edward VII was on the throne less than a decade.
George VI's reign is considered by many to be short, or at least shorter than it should have been, due to his premature death.
After Elizabeth II's reign, Charles' is going to be seen as shortsimply due to the length of his predecessor's time on the throne.
I don't see Charles living into his 90's just because I think the stresses of the crown are difficult for someone coming to the job later in life. Elizabeth II has, in a way, grown up in the job. Charles will be coming to it as an old man.
I don't think any of us really understands the physical toll the crown takes on a person. I can't believe it's as difficult as the PM's job, but it isn't a walk in the park, either.
The idea that William and Harry aren't as healthy as Charles is interesting. I've read reports in the press that health experts are predicting that the current 20 - 30 something generation will be the first in history to have a shorter life expectancy than it's parents' generation.
So long live "Charles' grandchild" the "somewhere between 1 and 9"!!

[Iluvbertie]

You have raised the very reason why I think Charles will live a long life - those that died after short reigns weren't living healthy lifestyles. They were heavy drinkers and/or smokers e.g. Edward VII lived to 68.5 but smoked 20+ cigarettes a day, multiple cigars, drank and ate to excess whereas Charles is a virtual teetollar, has never really smoked (I say never really as I assume that he might have tried one or two as a teenager), eats enough to keep body and soul together and exercises. His father is 88 and he has those genes. He has male ancestors who also made it into their 80s e.g. Christian IX of Denmark, a two times ancestor and he has George I of the Hellenes in his genes who also was into his 70s and we don't know how long he might have lived due to being assassinated. In other words those male ancestors who have taken care of their health have lived into their 80s or probably would have except for assassins and I see no reason why Charles won't live that long or longer.

William and Harry are heavier drinkers than Charles ever was and both have also been smokers.

I do see Charles as having a longer reign than George IV, William IV and Edward VII and even possibly his grandfather, due to his better health regime, the better medical support we have today and also the fact that he is the best prepared King in history. An argument could be made for George IV of course as he was virtually King from 1810 meaning that he effectively did the job of king for 20 years not 10.

[lallyvee]

I have read that the then Duke and Duchess of York wanted to name Princess Margaret, Anne, because they thought Anne of Youk sounded nice. However, Edward VIII didn't like the name so she became Margaret Rose.

[iowabelle]

Originally Posted by lallyvee

I have read that the then Duke and Duchess of York wanted to name Princess Margaret, Anne, because they thought Anne of Youk sounded nice. However, Edward VIII didn't like the name so she became Margaret Rose.

I think it was grandfather George V who was opposed to Anne of York.

[lallyvee]

Your right.