Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[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.

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]

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]

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

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

 

[HRHHermione]

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]

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.

 

[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]

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]

'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]

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]

...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]

'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]

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]

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]

Boring and old.

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]

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]

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]

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.