Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Keystone

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.

I don't know where you got this idea but some basic research has revealed the following as the names of the Kings of England/Britain since Tudor times have been:

Henry VIII - just Henry
Edward VI - again just Edward
James I and VI - Charles James
Charles I - just Charles
Charles II - again just Charles
James II - again appears to be just the single name - James
William III - just the one name again - William
George I - George Ludwig
George II - George August
George III - just George
George IV - George Augustus Frederick
William IV - William Henry
Edward VII - Albert Edward
George V - George Frederick Christian Albert
Edward VIII - Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David
George VI - Albert Frederick Arthur George

Queen Victoria named her third son Arthur after the 1st Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, whose birthsay was the same and it is that Arthur that has been the inspiration for Arthur appearing in later names, not the mythical King Arthur.

So in fact since Tudor times only one King has had Arthur in his name and that was the last one whose Arthur clearly would have come from his great-uncle Arthur. Charles would be the second to have Arthur in his names.

Victoria did say that ALL sons in line to the throne amongst her descendents had to have Albert in their names and Charles will the first since Victoria's time not to have Albert in their name - just as his mother was the first princess not to have Victoria.

[Keystone]

Originally Posted by muriel

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

I don't want to derail the topic but I guess I opened the door, eh? lol.

As for Wales, I guess I've never gotten over the 1284 Edwardian Conquest of my homeland? From my perspective, the English crown acquired Wales in a similar manner as Iraq tried to take Kuwait in the First Gulf War, or any aggressive country conquers another. Only...the the UN of the day (Catholic Church) acquiesced to it. I feel robbed of my history. I believe the Welsh would be better off economically had we been able to develop our own interests and keep investments within the country rather then siphoned off elsewhere. I believe Wales would be in a comparable position today as Denmark is next to Germany.

[Keystone]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I don't know where you got this idea but some basic research has revealed the following as the names of the Kings of England/Britain since Tudor times have been...

You forget Prince Arthur, first husband of Catherine of Aragon. And also Arthur, Duke of Brittany who was supposed to be king before King John.

Im sure there are many more not listed on Wiki.

[Keystone]

Look folks, I love England! I'm an Anglophile, speak English, and love Shakespeare! Just don't appreciate the conquest thing.

And it’s only a theory as to whether or not Charles will choose George as his regnal name. It's not even mine but a royal biographer (cant remember who, atm but he was on several talkshows here in the US!)


I like Charles as a person! And Camilla! Don't egg me!


lol

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Keystone

You forget Prince Arthur, first husband of Catherine of Aragon. And also Arthur, Duke of Brittany who was supposed to be king before King John.

Im sure there are many more not listed on Wiki.

You said

Every English monarch has born that name since the Tudors, IIRC.

so I didn't include those who were not Kings and deliberately left out the female monarchs as they wouldn't have Arthur in their names any way. The two examples you have given were never monarchs.

You also said since the Tudors so I only included those since the Tudors with the exception of Henry VII - the first of the Tudors - who also only had the one name. John's son pre-dates the Tudors by over 300 years.

Since the Tudors ONE monarch has had the name Arthur amongst their names not 'every' as you claimed.

[Iluvbertie]

There have been comments by some friends that he might take George VII certainly but not in any of the biographies that I have. Can you please identfy which biographer?

[muriel]

The Welsh nationalistic movement is pretty muted, bit I can't see a relevant linkage between the arugument for and against a separate Welsh nation, and the reign of Charles / George VII / .....

[Keystone]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

You said so I didn't include those who were not Kings and deliberately left out the female monarchs as they wouldn't have Arthur in their names any way. The two examples you have given were never monarchs.

You also said since the Tudors so I only included those since the Tudors with the exception of Henry VII - the first of the Tudors - who also only had the one name. John's son pre-dates the Tudors by over 300 years.

Since the Tudors ONE monarch has had the name Arthur amongst their names not 'every' as you claimed.

I may have overstated the use of Arthur, lol. But nevertheless, the thrust of the argument remains that it is highly doubtful Charles would chose Arthur as a regnal name.

Arthur, Duke of Brittany, was John's nephew for whom he is thought to have had murdered. Arthur was the son of Geoffery, John's older brother.

[Iluvbertie]

Using George, with Charles record is just as likely to see him compared with George IV, who like him had to wait a long time to be Kinf, was a philanderer and had a very public separation from his wife, to the point where he even refuseed to allow his wife into the Abbey on Coronation Day.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Personally, I hope he sticks with Charles.. although I wouldn't mind if he were Philip or Arthur either. But I'm honestly tired of George..

He has been Prince Charles for so long now, that to try and associate himself with another name seems almost ridiculous.

The Queen is now 84 years old. Prince Charles will be 62 next month.

If HM is anything like her mother, she could well live another 16 years.. which would leave Charles to ascend the throne at the age of 78.. very much older than William IV, who was crowned at the age of 64 (and is so far, the oldest monarch to be crowned).

I just can't imagine him with any other name than Charles.. so I hope he will be Charles III.. but if not, then Philip would be a good choice - there hasn't been one before - and that name would have zero comparisons to any other monarch.

[nascarlucy]

The previous King Charles lived centuries ago. I don't really associate their behavior with his. While its true that the previous King Charles had several mistresses), it seems that Prince Charles only had one mistress. King Charles II fathered numerous children out of wedlock. To my knowledge, Princess Charles didn't father numerous children out of wedlock. If he had, I'm sure this would have come out by now (it would be very very difficult to keep 12-15 children a secret from the public today).

When I think of a royal living a "hedonism lifestyle" Princess Charles doesn't come to mind. When I think of King Charles II, I would say he lived a "hedonism lifestyle."

I see the previous King Charles I and King Charles II as different royals who lived in a different time period. I don't associate them with Princess Charles nor would I when he is crowned King of England. Keep the name Charles.

[Mermaid1962]

Something tells me that the papers won't be headlining his coronation with the words "A New Caroline Age" as they did with his mother's "New Elizabethan Age." This is a more cynical time.

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

The previous King Charles lived centuries ago.

[Jenafran]

Do we know what name Charles will use as King? I wouldn't think that he would announce that before his Mum passes; but I could be wrong.... Just a random question.

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by Jenafran

Do we know what name Charles will use as King? I wouldn't think that he would announce that before his Mum passes; but I could be wrong.... Just a random question.

This has been discussed a lot - I think if you go back in this thread, in fact, you will find the discussion - or maybe there is a separate thread. I know its been discussed. Personally, I think he should just go by King Charles. I think it sounds classy.

[Iluvbertie]

Based on precedence he will announce it only after he is King - usually at the Accession Council.

It would be totally improper to do so beforehand. We do know that there has been a suggestion that he might use George VII but nothing official will be make known until the day he is King.

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

We do know that there has been a suggestion that he might use George VII

Grf! Oh, please, please - pulleeze - no.....

[HRHHermione]

Originally Posted by Tyger

Grf! Oh, please, please - pulleeze - no.....

That's actually kind of a nice idea. Why don't you like it? And it is one of his names after all, so it would make sense

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

That's actually kind of a nice idea. Why don't you like it? And it is one of his names after all, so it would make sense

'George' is a - oh, lets just say its an old timey name. Not a favorite of mine. Stuffy.

[IloveCP]

I like the idea of a George VII.It's a nice way to honor his grandfather.

[Mermaid1962]

I think that Prince Charles using the name George VII would be highly ironic. His grandfather became king because his brother abdicated to marry "the woman he loved"--thereby throwing the nation into a crisis. Prince Charles insisted on marrying Camilla--also a divorced woman--in spite of how people felt about it. The two most recent Georges would be appalled by that.