Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by SLV

According to that reasoning Amalia and Ingrid would use only by that name. WA actively used both names in public as a prince, the girls don't.

I don't agree. My reasoning is that their official full names are/will be used as regnal names (which are also used in their current official communication) even though they might be known by only one of their official names in private... Whether the press uses their private names as well is a different matter; it was hardly ever done for WA and is done regularly for CA; I don't know about IA - but the communication from the respective royal houses is key.

Amalia's official name includes a hyphen, her official name is Catharina-Amalia (officially known as The princess of Orange), so I expect that will be her regnal name. In official communication, she is also referenced as 'Catharina-Amalia'. Lots of people therefore were rather surprised that the prime minister recently referred to her as 'princess Amalia' because that is not how she is supposed to be referred to (but as 'the princess of Orange').

Sinds de inhuldiging van haar vader als Koning op 30 april 2013 heeft Prinses Catharina-Amalia de titel Prinses van Oranje. (...) Bij haar geboorte kreeg Prinses Catharina-Amalia de titels Prinses der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau. (...) Prinses Catharina-Amalia volgde vanaf 2007 het basisonderwijs op de Bloemcampschool in Wassenaar.

Source: koninklijkhuis.nl

Ingrid is officially 'Ingrid Alexandra' on the website of the Norwegian royal family, so, while she might use 'Ingrid' in private, the official communication by the Norwegian royal family uses either 'Prinsessen' or 'Princesse Ingrid Alexandra' and never 'Princess Ingrid'.

H.K.H. Prinsessen
Prinsesse Ingrid Alexandra, født 21. januar 2004.
Datter av Kronprins Haakon og Kronprinsesse Mette-Marit.
Nummer to i arverekken til den norske tronen etter sin far, Kronprinsen.

Hennes Kongelige Høyhet Prinsesse Ingrid Alexandra utfører offisielle oppgaver for Kongehuset. Nyhetssaker og utdrag av Prinsessens offisielle program er tilgjengelig herfra.

However, we're getting off-topic as in Charles' case he is known as 'Charles' or the prince of Wales... and not by any combination with one of his other names.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I personally agree with you, but the Spanish royal family appears to have steered clear of the regnal name Carlos ever since the Carlist pretenders challenged the legitimacy of Queen Isabel II and her successors, so it is not a farfetched idea. I suppose one difference between Britain and Spain is that there have been no active Jacobite claimants to the British throne in two centuries.

I'm skeptical Queen Elizabeth would have named her oldest son and heir Charles if the BRF felt it wouldn't be an appropriate regnal name due to its Jacobite associations.

As for the reason the name Charles was selected, Patricia Countess Mountbatten told one biographer it was simply because both the Queen and Prince Philip liked it.

Source: Gyles Brandreth, Philip and Elizabeth: Portrait of a Royal Marriage (2004), pp.190-191.

[King of the Jungle]

King Charles sounds fine.
King Charles the Environmental

I think he will choose to be known as King Charles or King Arthur.
King Arthur of the Habitat.

[Osipi]

As long as we're going the route of Charles picking a regnal name from the names he was given at birth, he could easily decide too that he'll be called King Philip I in memory of his father. I could easily see him picking this over King Arthur.

[Friedrich Karl II]

Originally Posted by Osipi

As long as we're going the route of Charles picking a regnal name from the names he was given at birth, he could easily decide too that he'll be called King Philip I in memory of his father. I could easily see him picking this over King Arthur.

But still, why Charles even would change his name since he has been known as "Charles" hwole of his life?


Philip would be inindeed intresting name asnd something what British royals haven't used. But perhaps prince George would give that for his firstborn son. There hardly is reason why he wouldn't.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II

But still, why Charles even would change his name since he has been known as "Charles" hwole of his life?


Philip would be inindeed intresting name asnd something what British royals haven't used. But perhaps prince George would give that for his firstborn son. There hardly is reason why he wouldn't.

Wasn't "Armada-Phil" known as king Philip of Spain and England when he was married to queen Mary I.?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Wasn't "Armada-Phil" known as king Philip of Spain and England when he was married to queen Mary I.?

A bit simplified, but in England their collective titles were from 1556: "Philip and Mary, by the grace of God King and Queen of England, Spain, France, both the Sicilies, Jerusalem and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol"

[lucien]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Won't happen. See Charles I and Charles II for the reasons why. He is most likely to reign as George VII, per Wikipedia.

Per wikipedia!!Since when is that the norm??Never was,never will be.
Charles III it will be.

[CyrilVladisla]

King Charles II of Great Britain died in 1685. Thus no monarch has had Charles as a regnal name for over three centuries. Three centuries is indeed a long time.
Perhaps because Charles has not been used in such a long time some people are hesitant to see it used again. Since 1714 most of the male monarchs have been Georges or Edwards. Also there was one William: King William IV.

[Camsterlaird]

Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II

The Bonnie Prince was usurper so not way that prince of Wales would be known as Charles IV.

Not everyone would agree on that point .. they might say that Mary II and William III were the usurpers! Anyway Bonnie Prince Charlie was hailed as the King in Edinburgh ... just saying that using his natal name might not be the best policy.

[Friedrich Karl II]

Originally Posted by Camsterlaird

Not everyone would agree on that point .. they might say that Mary II and William III were the usurpers! Anyway Bonnie Prince Charlie was hailed as the King in Edinburgh ... just saying that using his natal name might not be the best policy.

I think that that is only just between supporters of current royal family and Jacobites. And with my knowledge Jacobites are not very strong political power currently. Probably even smaller one than Carlists of Spain. Do even current nominal claimant duke of Bavaria care about that issue any?=


And IMO it would look bit odd that Charles would use number IV not III since previous legal king Charles was II. Yes, not quiet unique thing but using name Charles IV would mean that prince of Wales and royal family recognise the Bonnie Prince as legal king. And how many Brits even know about that Jacobite claimant?

[Osipi]

But seriously folks, looking over at everything posted, I think the chances are greater that Charles and Camilla would choose to use "King Fred and Queen Gladys" over using any other names when the time comes. Using the names that they have gone by for over 70 years just really makes the most sense to me. Until the time comes though, we won't know as it's known that Charles can choose *any* name as his regnal name. Even "Fred".

[Beth19]

Hi all! Personally, I had assumed we got a hint of the future when Prince George of Cambridge was named in 2013. I remember that I took his naming as evidence that Charles would take his own name as Charles III as king - and by explicitly naming a future king "George," they were insuring that the name would be used in the future. For what it's worth, that's my thought process...



Beth

[CyrilVladisla]

Tina Brown on when Charles becomes King

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Beia33PAp0U

[CyrilVladisla]

The name Charles is expected to choose when he becomes King

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXZy33l5lc8

[Hans-Rickard]

Had King George VI felt that the name Charles would be an issue for the next Heir to the Throne, he wouldn’t have signed it off…

If he chooses a different regnal name, it will be George VII (though that would likely put his grandson as George VIII, and having him always be compared by some to Edward VIII and Henry VIII)

But i have very difficult to see why a man becoming King around the age of 75 would want to be known by something else than he has been known all his life…

He will by all likelyhood reign as Charles III. If the scots would protest (wich they won’t as they will be fully occupied campaigning for the 2:nd referendum of Independence) he could reign Charles IV there instead… Different regnal numbers in England and Scotland is after all not unheard of.

[Curryong]

I read years ago that the present Queen gave her two eldest children Stuart names at her mother’s suggestion. The Queen Mother was immensely proud of being Scottish and born into one of Scotland’s oldest aristocratic families. If that’s true then presumably George VI knew the reasons for naming his daughter’s first baby Charles and agreed with them.