Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Durham]

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

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Durham

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Official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria, but the first name was withdrawn at her request.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]

Originally Posted by 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Official documents prepared on the first day of her reign described her as Alexandrina Victoria, but the first name was withdrawn at her request.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).

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]

Originally Posted by Denville

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]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by Denville

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]

Originally Posted by Denville

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.

[Alison H]

Definitely Charles III. If he were to recognise Bonnie Prince Charlie, that would be saying that he thought George I and George II weren't the legitimate kings - how could he possibly do that?


The de facto/de jure difference is only in the eyes of Jacobites. In the eyes of everyone else, all the rulers from 1688 onwards were the de jure monarchs, as James II/VII had been overthrown and a new line of succession established. You could get into a very long and boring argument about John Locke and social contracts and when it's OK to overthrow a monarch, but that's what happened, and the 1701 Act of Succession was passed by Parliament. You could as soon say that William should be William I because Edgar the Atheling was the de jure king and William the Conqueror only the de facto king: you could go on all day with this, with the various succession disputes over the centuries!

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

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 ut 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.

Of course he wont be recongising "Bonnie Prince Charlie". He'll be Charles III.

[Iain]

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.

The UK has only had one Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth Tudor was Queen of England, not the UK, which only came into existence in 1801.

[Durham]

This formula was suggested by Churchill in 1952 as some Scots objected to the new sovereign being known as Elizabeth ii.

"I think it would be reasonable and logical to continue to adopt in future whichever numeral in the English or Scottish line were higher."


https://api.parliament.uk/historic-h...tyle-and-title

For instance any future King James of the UK would be James viii not James iii.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by muriel

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.

Agreed entirely. While it is certainly his right to select a new regnal name if he should feel strongly about it enough to do so, I simply just don't see it happening. 70+ years is a long time for one to be associated with a name just to see it changed and everyone falling all over themselves to adjust. It does seem rather silly. Now, that said, I suppose there are some very good reasons to change one's regnal name, particularly under certain circumstances. I believe it was the right decision for King George VI. I could also see it taking place if a parent were to die young or valiantly as a hero of some sort as a way to honor that person. For instance, should William have died in the line of duty while helping to rescue someone as an air ambulance pilot it may have made sense for George to then rule under the regnal name of William in tribute to his father if he had wished to do so.

However, under the current circumstances, I really can't think of any good reason for Charles to be known as anything other than King Charles III.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II

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.

it is hardly likely that he would have ever made any kind of announcement that he intended to use a particular regnal name.. so all we have to go on are rumours.... but there may have been a time years ago that he did perhaps say to someone privately that he'd prefer George to Charles. however if he did, I think that by now he has probably accepted its better to stay with his own first name.

[Somebody]

I wasn't sure in which thread Camilla's future title was discussed (maybe it should have it's own thread?); so feel free to move it to a more appropriate place.

I just read that Tom Parker-Bowles commented on his mother's future title. Not sure why he felt the need to answer.

"I honestly don't know if Mum will be called queen," her son Tom Parker-Bowles, told The Times on Thursday. "That hasn't been decided. There are a lot of interesting Sky documentaries about that I'm sure, but I honestly don't know if that's true."

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I wasn't sure in which thread Camilla's future title was discussed (maybe it should have it's own thread?); so feel free to move it to a more appropriate place.

I just read that Tom Parker-Bowles commented on his mother's future title. Not sure why he felt the need to answer.

She sure deserves to be Queen...no matter what the public thinks

[Friedrich Karl II]

IMO it would be bit odd if she wouldn't be queen but only just duchess of Cornwall.


Anyway, why Brits seems hate her so much? Is that just sensitive feel that she stole Diana's place or is there something else? Like has she said or done something (beside causing Charles' and Diana's divorce) which has angried them?

[Iluvbertie]

She won't be The Duchess of Cornwall when Charles is King. Catherine will instantly become Duchess of Cornwall when The Queen dies.

Camilla is currently The Duchess of Cornwall as the wife of The Duke of Cornwall. When Charles becomes King he will no longer hold that title (William will).

The only title that Camilla will hold the instant The Queen dies is 'Queen' as Charles will only hold the title of King (other then when dealing with matters concerning the Duchy of Lancaster).

There could be an argument that she could be Duchess of Lancaster but I can find no reference to any spouse of a Duke of Lancaster using that title since the Duke of Lancaster title is a title held by the monarch.