Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Betsypaige]

I think its highly unlikely... Perhaps he liked the idea when he was younger.. but its never been definitively stated that he expressed such a wish.

I never said that Charles had expressed a wish, though I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he felt that way. I do agree it’s unlikely....

 

[Denville]

There have been several Georges and Will's son will likley be King George one day. Not so many Charleses....

 

[Betsypaige]

There have been several Georges and Will's son will likley be King George one day. Not so many Charleses....

True,true, true ! Some think Charles is a bad luck name given its Royal history, but I don’t believe in that stuff, so Charles III would be fine...!

 

[QueenMathilde]

He'd be Charles III wouldn't he, if he went with Charles?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

He'd be Charles III wouldn't he, if he went with Charles?

Yes, That is correct. If Prince Charles uses Charles as his regnal name, he would be King Charles III.

 

[rominet09]

I wonder why he would have to change his name ? It must be strange to change at his time of life after having had the same name for all this time.

 

[Mbruno]

There have been several Georges and Will's son will likley be King George one day. Not so many Charleses....

Most common (male) regnal names in Great Britain (including Kings of England and of Scotland, as well as Kings of the United Kingdom)

• Henry (VIII) & Edward (VIII)
• James (VII)
• George (VI)
• William (IV) and Malcom (IV)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wonder why he would have to change his name ? It must be strange to change at his time of life after having had the same name for all this time.

He doesn't have to change his name.

Prior to 1837 the monarchs used their first given name.

Queen Victoria used her second name - Victoria rather than her first name of Alexandrina.

Her son, Edward VII, used Edward rather than his first given name of Albert.

George VI also didn't use his first given name of Albert, but used George instead.

These are the only three occasions when the first Christian name wasn't used but as they have been three of the past 6 monarchs it seems that the question keeps coming up with regards to Charles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

He doesn't have to change his name.

Prior to 1837 the monarchs used their first given name.

Queen Victoria used her second name - Victoria rather than her first name of Alexandrina.

Her son, Edward VII, used Edward rather than his first given name of Albert.

George VI also didn't use his first given name of Albert, but used George instead.

These are the only three occasions when the first Christian name wasn't used but as they have been three of the past 6 monarchs it seems that the question keeps coming up with regards to Charles.

Since Victoria and Edward VII used the names of Alexandrina Victoria and Albert Edward prior to their accessions, in my eyes the George VI scenario is the only one comparable to a hypothetical change from Charles to George VII. It would have been comparable to Victoria or Edward VII if Charles had been styled Prince Charles George of Edinburgh from birth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Victoria stopped using any reference to Alexandrina when she was about 7 when she stopped being called Drina in the family. The Court Circular refers to Victoria as Princess Victoria during the reign of William IV which would tell the world that is the name that she used. It was the name by which the public knew her.

e.g. Court Circular 23rd May 1837 - The King, we are happy to state, is better. The State Ball, at St James's Palace tomorrow (the anniversary of the Princess Victoria's birthday), will, it is expected take place.

Court Circular 25th May, 1837 - Yesterday, being the birthday of Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria, Kensington was more than usually gay.

No mention of Alexandrina in the CC for Victoria.

In addition - the articles in The Times about Victoria's 18th birthday all referred to her as simply Princess Victoria - no Alexandrina.

For anyone wondering where I am getting the CC from - I am using the Archive from The Times. I subscribed specifically to get this information and am slowly ... very slowly spending my retirement (between bouts of pneumonia and two knee replacements) doing an analysis of the CC. I have started in 1952 and will work through the Queen's reign, minus 1986 - 1996 as The Times Archive stops in 1985 and the British monarchy doesn't start until 1997. I thought I had a means of getting the missing years but it seems the State Library of NSW hasn't put the entire Times on their archive page and only put up selected stories. I don't know if I will be able to physically get to the Library to see if they have the hard copies and then how I might be able to access them ... anyway that is a job for the future.)

 

[Prinsara]

Since Victoria and Edward VII used the names of Alexandrina Victoria and Albert Edward prior to their accessions, in my eyes the George VI scenario is the only one comparable to a hypothetical change from Charles to George VII. It would have been comparable to Victoria or Edward VII if Charles had been styled Prince Charles George of Edinburgh from birth.

Victoria wasn't styled as Alexandrina Victoria, though. The public knew her as Princess Victoria of Kent. "Alexandrina" was only because the Czar had offered to be her godparent and no name could precede his. After having rejected her parents choices of "Georgiana" and "Charlotte" at her christening and making the Duchess of Kent cry, the Prince Regent said "give her the mother's name", and so we got an age.

 

[stunking]

I like Charles the III very dignified, distingushed and hasn't been used in a long time. There may be and up and coming George the VII. I read somewhere the Queen asked William to name his first son George.

 

[SLV]

That is quite a task you have given yourself. I look forward to read your findings.

Victoria stopped using any reference to Alexandrina when she was about 7 when she stopped being called Drina in the family. The Court Circular refers to Victoria as Princess Victoria during the reign of William IV which would tell the world that is the name that she used. It was the name by which the public knew her.

e.g. Court Circular 23rd May 1837 - The King, we are happy to state, is better. The State Ball, at St James's Palace tomorrow (the anniversary of the Princess Victoria's birthday), will, it is expected take place.

Court Circular 25th May, 1837 - Yesterday, being the birthday of Her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria, Kensington was more than usually gay.

No mention of Alexandrina in the CC for Victoria.

In addition - the articles in The Times about Victoria's 18th birthday all referred to her as simply Princess Victoria - no Alexandrina.

For anyone wondering where I am getting the CC from - I am using the Archive from The Times. I subscribed specifically to get this information and am slowly ... very slowly spending my retirement (between bouts of pneumonia and two knee replacements) doing an analysis of the CC. I have started in 1952 and will work through the Queen's reign, minus 1986 - 1996 as The Times Archive stops in 1985 and the British monarchy doesn't start until 1997. I thought I had a means of getting the missing years but it seems the State Library of NSW hasn't put the entire Times on their archive page and only put up selected stories. I don't know if I will be able to physically get to the Library to see if they have the hard copies and then how I might be able to access them ... anyway that is a job for the future.)

 

[Denville]

He doesn't have to change his name.

Prior to 1837 the monarchs used their first given name.

Queen Victoria used her second name - Victoria rather than her first name of Alexandrina.

Her son, Edward VII, used Edward rather than his first given name of Albert.

George VI also didn't use his first given name of Albert, but used George instead.

These are the only three occasions when the first Christian name wasn't used but as they have been three of the past 6 monarchs it seems that the question keeps coming up with regards to Charles.

there's also Edward VIII. He seems to have always been known officialy as Prince Edward but He was called privately by his last name David. Also Albert Victor was officially known as Alb Victor but he was called Eddy... which was his last name. And I think Victoria hoped and beleived that AV would rule as King Albert Victor....

 

[Denville]

I wonder why he would have to change his name ? It must be strange to change at his time of life after having had the same name for all this time.

he doesn't have to change his name.. but there have been rumours that he might choose to be known as George VII

 

[Iluvbertie]

there's also Edward VIII. He seems to have always been known officialy as Prince Edward but He was called privately by his last name David. Also Albert Victor was officially known as Alb Victor but he was called Eddy... which was his last name. And I think Victoria hoped and beleived that AV would rule as King Albert Victor....

What they were called by the family is irrelevant - it is the name the public knew them as that is the relevant point.

Edward VIII was HRH Prince Edward.

Albert Victor was known as HRH Prince Albert of Wales.

Edward VIII therefore used his first Christian name as King, not his last which is the name his family called him, David.

We have no idea what name Albert Victor would have used but we do know the name the public had for him - Albert of Wales while his father was also known as Prince Albert or The Prince of Wales.

The media didn't use the names Albert Edward of Albert Victor or David so the public didn't use those names either.

 

[Alison H]

Things do seem to have got very complicated in Queen Victoria's time! Previous monarchs/royals were known to both their families and the public by the same name, or by a short version such as Bess for Elizabeth or Hal for Harry. I think part of the issue was that so many royal families were closely related in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the same first names were used over and over, so people either used their second names or became known within the family by nicknames - Mossy, Ducky and all the rest of them!

 

[Denville]

Things do seem to have got very complicated in Queen Victoria's time! Previous monarchs/royals were known to both their families and the public by the same name, or by a short version such as Bess for Elizabeth or Hal for Harry. I think part of the issue was that so many royal families were closely related in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the same first names were used over and over, so people either used their second names or became known within the family by nicknames - Mossy, Ducky and all the rest of them!

Yes, I come from an old fashioned Irish culture where people were given very much the same family names.. and often cousins would have very similar names. So using nicknames and variations was a way of distinguishing them. And Victoria's desire for her descendants to be all called Albert and Victoria, i think she preferred these as "official" names, but the child was often called something different in private. Albert Victor was meant to be the future King and Vic wanted him to reign as Albert Victor.. but he was alwasy called by his fourth name Edward ie Eddy. I think that when Edward VIII came along, perhaps the famiy were getting a bit tired of using the same old regal names and he was always called David though he was officially prince Edward... which was unusual in the BRF but I think they wanted a new name.. at least in private. As far as I know George VI was known as Prince Albert, but when he became King, because of the special circumstances, he chose his last name as his regnal name. So no reason why Charles could not do the same if he want to but I think that in today's world it would be unusual and he probably wont do it...

 

[Prinsara]

The media didn't use the names Albert Edward of Albert Victor or David so the public didn't use those names either.

The media did use Albert Edward, but since he was The Prince of Wales his whole life, they tended to use that. Likewise Albert Victor was the official name, since George was known to bemoan that after being created Duke of Clarence and Avondale that Eddy couldn't get away from the double names, which George was not a fan of.

 

[Gawin]

Most common (male) regnal names in Great Britain (including Kings of England and of Scotland, as well as Kings of the United Kingdom)

• Henry (VIII) & Edward (VIII)
• James (VII)
• George (VI)
• William (IV) and Malcom (IV)

Add Edward the Confessor and we have nine Edwards.

 

[Durham]

What's the betting that we have no more Malcolms?

 

[Betsypaige]

What's the betting that we have no more Malcolms?

Higher than the odds that there are no more Aethelreds ........and no Arthur's at all, lol

 

[Fijiro]

I am guessing Charles will use George VII, it is one of his middle names.

Kings/Queens don't always use their first names.

Queen Victoria at birth was Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent, and even Official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria, but the first name was withdrawn at her request.

And Queen Charlotte was born Sophia Charlotte (I know she is not a regnant).

 

[Somebody]

I am guessing Charles will use George VII, it is one of his middle names.

Kings/Queens don't always use their first names.

Queen Victoria at birth was Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent, and even Official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria, but the first name was withdrawn at her request.

And Queen Charlotte was born Sophia Charlotte (I know she is not a regnant).

Victoria used the name she was both privately and officially known by; so Charles using the name the world knows him by would be following that pattern. I fully expect for Charles to follow his mother's example who apparently answered to the question by which name she would be known "my own of course" (or something along those lines). I expect Charles to say the same; because there is no good reason not to.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

he doesn't have to change his name.. but there have been rumours that he might choose to be known as George VII

I am sure that there has been speculations about Charles' regnal name sicne court published his name. And I wouldn't give much attention to rumours. These are just rumours not facts.

 

[muriel]

Victoria used the name she was both privately and officially known by; so Charles using the name the world knows him by would be following that pattern. I fully expect for Charles to follow his mother's example who apparently answered to the question by which name she would be known "my own of course" (or something along those lines). I expect Charles to say the same; because there is no good reason not to.

I tend to agree with you. Charles will become King late in life, and is unlikely to want to be known by a different name to that which he has been known for all these years.

 

[Denville]

I am guessing Charles will use George VII, it is one of his middle names.

Kings/Queens don't always use their first names.

Queen Victoria at birth was Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent, and even Official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria, but the first name was withdrawn at her request.

And Queen Charlotte was born Sophia Charlotte (I know she is not a regnant).

That was a heck of a long time ago. Its unusual now for Kings to adopt a different name. And Charles has never made a statement to that effect. He is now over 70 and it woudl seem very odd for him to choose a new name after being Prince Charles for so long and always being called by that name.

 

[muriel]

That was a heck of a long time ago. Its unusual now for Kings to adopt a different name. And Charles has never made a statement to that effect. He is now over 70 and it woudl seem very odd for him to choose a new name after being Prince Charles for so long and always being called by that name.

Agreed. King George VII, IMO, will be Prince George of Cambridge.

 

[Kataryn]

That was a heck of a long time ago. Its unusual now for Kings to adopt a different name. And Charles has never made a statement to that effect. He is now over 70 and it woudl seem very odd for him to choose a new name after being Prince Charles for so long and always being called by that name.

Agreed. But which king Charles will he be? I know that former kings are counted if they reigned in the same place, even if it was a different kingdom. Hence Elizabeth is Elisabeth II., though there never was an Elizabeth I. of Scotland. But as England is a part of the Uk, she is the second Elizabeth to rule there. Now with Charles we get a historical problem: does they follow the de jure or the de facto kings? For de facto Charles would be Charles III., as there were two kings Charles of the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.

De jure there was a Charles III. as well, as grandson of the deposed king James he was a nephew of queen Anne and thus close to the throne: Charles Edward Stuart, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie. When he tried to take back his inheritance 1745, he took Edinburgh and was named there as Princeregent for his father James III. who had stayed in Rome. After his uprising failed, the Princeregent (officially named that by his father before 1745) settled back in Rome and in 1766, after his father's death, declared himself Charles III. A title the pope acknowledged.


Now of course the British Parliament didn't acknowledge him, so Chalres could take the Regal Number, but still, it makes me wonder if Charles wants to take that or if he will give "Bonnie Prince Charlie" this acknowledgement (he was the last male-line Stuart anyway) and reign as Charles IV. or go with the title of George VII?

In times when the Scottish independance is still a very actual topic, there might be discussions about that as well.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Old and Young Pretender weren't recognised by the parliament which had removed them from the line of succession so Charles III.