Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[VictoriaB]

But times move on. What was not appropriate in 1936 ie divorce, is accepted now.

Like both Georges, Charles now has a loving and supportive consort who works quietly in the background for her causes.

Personally I think it's sad that people still seek to define him solely by his failed marriage (which failed for two people not just one). He has done much good, particularly through the Princes Trust. He has also proved to be a good and loving father.

I'm sure both Georges would find much to admire in the present Prince of Wales.

[HRHHermione]

Agreed completely

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Another attempt to yet again bring up the past. I don't know if there is any subject more in need of people getting over it than this one. How about we make some more "who the heck cares" comparisons:
George VI named himself after a father who bullied and traumatized him in childhood.
George V and VI share there name with George III who went crazy, and George IV who was estranged from his wife for decades. I wonder if they were appaled by such behavior.

[Kataryn]

I don't think he will chose George out of respect of his father. George is the name connected with the House of Windsor and I don't think Philip would want his son to publicily declare that he is not the son and heir of Philip Mountbatten but that of Elizabeth Windsor - which is a fact, of course, especially when it comes to Charles' kingdom, but not one that needs to be declared in such a forthcoming manner.

Naming their firstborn Charles shows me that the Mountbatten-Windsors have not had any problems with the fact that there already was a Jacobite Charles III.

It can be discussed if after the House of Stuart became extinct in the male-line in 1807 The Hanovers who were de facto kings of the Uk became the kings de jure as well as surely the next of kin heirs of the Stuarts (regardless of their religion) derived from the marriage of a princess (Henrietta Ann Stuart) who had signed away her inheritance rights on marrying to a French prince. In a case like that it would have needed a Royal act (and later an act of parliament) to reinstall them into the line pf succession which of course didn't happen, so that the Act of Settlement became the only valid Act to deal with the succession and it favoured the line which today sees Charles Mountbatten-Windsor as the heir.

But obviously for the queen and her husband, then Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh it was not a question - as they chose to name their son Charles, they accepted the defacto inheritance as the de jure one and thus for the Windsors Charles will be Charles III as Bonnie Prince Charlie never de facto was Charles III.

So I guess Charles will be Charles III.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

So I guess Charles will be Charles III.

Half the population of the US doesn't know who Charles 1 & 2 are anyway. I find Charles just fine, thankyouverymuch!

[KittyAtlanta]

Originally Posted by Tyger

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

Let's see; "modern" names for a king of England. King DeShawn? King Jared? King Keanu?

Uh...

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

Let's see; "modern" names for a king of England. King DeShawn? King Jared? King Keanu?

Uh...

LOL....thanks for that. Blue Ivy seems a gender neutral name that is very current, although it does sound like something you should go to a doctor to get cured.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

...How about we make some more "who the heck cares" comparisons:
George VI named himself after a father who bullied and traumatized him in childhood.
George V and VI share their name with George III who went crazy, and George IV who was estranged from his wife for decades. I wonder if they were appalled by such behavior.

Not forgetting George I who had his wife imprisoned in a German castle for 30 years until she died;
and George II, who wrote after the death of his son, Frederick Prince of Wales, "I am glad of it."

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Tyger

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

Well...Charles, Phillip, Arthur and George are pretty much all old timey names, no?

[Tyger]

I am reminded of the line in 'It's A Wonderful Life' when Donna Reed says to James Stewart in the heat of passion - 'Oh George, George, George - ' Nope - just doesn't work. Good film - but 'George'? No.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Half the population of the US doesn't know who Charles 1 & 2 are anyway. I find Charles just fine, thankyouverymuch!

Dearest Russophile, as there is no majority in a vote (and by the US-citizens, no less ) needed but the decision is simply Charles' and his alone, it's interesting to see how the BRF deals with the past. I bet Charles knows exactly who Charles I. and II were and that they are not his ancestors! Well, maybe they are via a female line...

I personally prefer Charles, too.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

It has long been said that Charles is going with George VII. Is that rumor or fact? I highly doubt he will be Charles III because of the association with Charles I, but it's not like he will reign for long. Either name he chooses is boring and old, that's the BRF for you. I'm still pissed Edward VIII didn't choose to be King David, that would have been great.

[Madame Royale]

I wish you luck in moving beyond the abdication crisis of 1936.

As for Charles, to be known by anything other than his given name is beyond rediculous. Theres never been any association between the names George and Charles where the public is concerned. It's not even his second given name.

PR wise, I don't believe it would do him any great service and would only make him appear even more eccentric.

Here's hoping the matter of fact approach his mother had in relation to the question of her own regnal name is something Charles shall endorse for himself.

[Iluvbertie]

We don't know what name he will use. Nothing official will be announced until the day of his accession - that is the day the Queen dies. He may choose one of his baptismal names or any other name he likes.

[Duke of Marmalade]

He is Charles, has always been and will always be. Changing his name would be ridiculous. It was ok in old times to do so in order to have tradition but in modern times it would be absurd, really.

I mean a man who cant cope with his given name, sorry but what is his purpose again?

People rolling their eyes will be one of the most understanding public reactions I guess.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

I'm still pissed Edward VIII didn't choose to be King David, that would have been great.

Really? With an abdication even before the coronation? That's great for you?

[James VI]

Xenia, i dont disagree with you that the traditional names favoured by the British royal family may appear " old and boring " but they do serve a purpose: continuity between the past and present. Other royal houses exercise similar conservatism, with no apparent ill-effect. The present King of Sweden, for example, is the 16th Carl Gustaf. I would say that continuity, and the personal link bewteen past and present, is the greatest strength of any Monarchy.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Originally Posted by James VI

The present King of Sweden, for example, is the 16th Carl Gustaf. I would say that continuity, and the personal link bewteen past and present, is the greatest strength of any Monarchy.

But his name IS Carl Gustaf and he wasnt Bertil or Carl Philip for over 60 years before he re-named himself.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

But his name IS Carl Gustaf and he wasnt Bertil or Carl Philip for over 60 years before he re-named himself.

In a way, yes. But the continuing name was "Carl" and it was taken over by "Jean-Baptiste" Bernadotte (John the Baptist") who added the Carl and kept the Johan-part. And Charles is called "George" since his birth, so I'm not sure you can compare/use this as contra-example.

[Madame Royale]

Originally Posted by James VI

Xenia, i dont disagree with you that the traditional names favoured by the British royal family may appear " old and boring " but they do serve a purpose: continuity between the past and present.

To be known as George, perhaps somewhat in honour of a grandfather he knew only as a small child, and who hasn't been King in over 60 years, is not a sign of continuity I'm affraid.

George VI chose George as his regnal name as a sign on contunity with his father's reign; an attempt to instill an unsettled empire with a pacifying familiarity after the events of 1936.

One should hope Charles has enough confidence in his name and in himself to forgo any superstitious nonsense.