Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
He was the Jacobite successor, so technically he had a claim to the thrones of England (and Wales), Scotland, and Ireland. The Jacobites don’t recognize the Acts of Union 1707 (which happened after the Glorious Revolution), and as the Jacobites have predominantly been Scottish, the fact that they also claimed the English throne tends to be forgotten.

Charles Emmanuel IV descends from Charles I through his youngest daughter, Henrietta Anne. Through primogeniture, his claim to the throne is greater than that of the Hanovers (whose claim comes from their descent from James I), but his family was passed over (along with many others) because they were Catholics.
 
Ish said:
Henry was the last person to make a claim themselves, but others have had claims made on their behalf - the current heir is Franz, Duke of Bavaria (styled by Jacobites as Francis II).

Henry’s successor (to the claim) was Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia, who was styled by Jacobites as Charles IV.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the so called Jacobite line. Franz's heir is his brother, and his niece who is Sophie of Lichtenstein.

But even if Charles, for some unknown reason, was going to respect the claim of the Jacobite succession, we're talking Claim. The last Charles to CLAIM the throne was Charlie (Charles III). Charles Emmanuel never bothered to lay any claim and no reason at all to assign him Charles IV.

If George had a daughter Mary who was his eldest, would anyone suggest she be Mary IV? No, she would be Mary III.

But the Jacobite succession would only be taken into account in counting IF they were restored. Which they weren't and wont be.
 
Ish said:
I chuckled :)

I don't think there's been a strong Jacobite movement since the '45 Rebellion. No Jacobite heir has claimed the throne since the death of Henry Benedict Stuart in 1807.

It's rather silly for people to think that Charles is going to change his name simply because 230 years ago a man claimed to be Charles III, when he never actually held the throne.
Click to expand...

No but he might not want to use the name Charles, I don't thnk he has any serious intentions of not using the name he's always been known by, but it is certainly not without precedent so he could ceritanly do it if he wanted to. His grandfather was known as Albert/Bertie, and chose the Regnal name George VI, the D of Windsor was known as David but was known as Edward VIII. His mother was asked when she became queen what name she wnted to use.. so it is certainly a possibility..and I wouldn't want to dogmatically state that he wont do it...
 
:previous: Well 'David's' name was actually "Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David and he was "known as" David to family and friends.

Albert (Bertie's) name was "Albert Frederick Arthur George" and his name was yet another sacrifice he made for his country. He chose the Regnal name of his father George V to provide the country with a sense of continuity and was still known to family and close friends as Bertie.

Queen Elizabeth said she had always been Elizabeth and that was that. I cannot see Charles changing his Regnal name for the same reason his mother didn't.
 
Countessmeout said:
I am well aware of the so called Jacobite line. Franz's heir is his brother, and his niece who is Sophie of Lichtenstein.

But even if Charles, for some unknown reason, was going to respect the claim of the Jacobite succession, we're talking Claim. The last Charles to CLAIM the throne was Charlie (Charles III). Charles Emmanuel never bothered to lay any claim and no reason at all to assign him Charles IV.

If George had a daughter Mary who was his eldest, would anyone suggest she be Mary IV? No, she would be Mary III.

But the Jacobite succession would only be taken into account in counting IF they were restored. Which they weren't and wont be.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed this post.

The statement was made that Charles (PoW) would be styled as Charles V by Jacobite - you'd asked who Charles IV would have been. I was just trying to reply to that question - Charles IV, according to Jacobites, was Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia. Jacobites, of course, wouldn't recognize Charles (PoW) as a legitimate ruler, so wouldn't number him as Charles IV at all.

If a Jacobite restoration were to happen (unlikely), and another Charles came to the throne, they would number him as Charles V in recognition of Charles Emmanuel - regardless of the fact that he never sat on nor claimed the throne.
 
If Charles uses Charles as his regnal name, what will his era be referred to? When Edward VII was King, his was the Edwardian era.
 
The reign of Charles the Green?

I seriously doubt that Charles' reign will ever be classified as an era for the reason being that it will not be an overly long reign. I actually picture it in my mind as Charles' reign being a transitional reign between Queen Elizabeth II and King William V and Queen Catherine.
 
what will his era be referred to
Click to expand...

Era's with a Charles as King are referred to as 'Carolean' after the Latin for Charles, which is Carolus.

Coins of the Realm will also bear the words 'Carolus III D.G [dei Gratia] Rex Fidelis. Meaning "Charles III, by the grace of God, King and Defender of the Faith".
 
Last edited:
Osipi said:
The reign of Charles the Green?

I seriously doubt that Charles' reign will ever be classified as an era for the reason being that it will not be an overly long reign. I actually picture it in my mind as Charles' reign being a transitional reign between Queen Elizabeth II and King William V and Queen Catherine.
Click to expand...

I think you're right that Charles' reign is likely to be a relatively short and transitional one but.... Edward VII reigned for less than a decade and yet we have an Edwardian era which is characterised as being distinct from the both the Victorian era and the reign of George V, so you never know.
 
Personally, I think we're better off going with wyevale's response. He's hit it right on the nose. :D
 
I would have said Carolinian.. but the present queen has had the longest reign in the history of the Monarchy and it has hardly ever been referred to as the "New Elizabehtan age".... so I doubt if any "name" will be applied...
 
I've often heard the term "Carolingian" too. Especially the era after the Merovingian.

I have seen it in multiple places in the past 8 years where the present reign is referred to as the the new Elizabethan era of HM, Queen Elizabeth II.
 
I think it was in the UK back in the 50s, but I haven't seen it referred to as such, for a long time. In the 50s there was a hope that after the war, the "new age" would bea time of hope etc.. well years have passed and gradually the RF has become less relevant. It is in the background of brtisih life. I don't think that (apart from dedicated royal watchers) the idea of naming an era after a monarch will be kept on, sicne now the monarch is not the ruler...
 
Honestly, the only place I would expect any wording of The Second Elizabethan Age would be in history books of the future. HM reigned for so long and had so many historic milestones, I could see a chapter being The World Wars and then The Second Elizabethan Age.

Then again I'm still waiting for the official start of the age of Aquarius. :D
 
Osipi said:
Honestly, the only place I would expect any wording of The Second Elizabethan Age would be in history books of the future. HM reigned for so long and had so many historic milestones, I could see a chapter being The World Wars and then The Second Elizabethan Age.

Then again I'm still waiting for the official start of the age of Aquarius. :D
Click to expand...

It's never really struck me that the Queen is an emblem for the era that her reign has occurred in to be honest, not in a way that is comparable to some previous monarchs. Part of it is because Britain hasn't dominated as much as it did previously - the Elizabethan, Georgian, and Victorian ages each occurred at periods when Britain was very dominant in the world, and the Edwardian age is that period where it really started to end (or, alternatively, is the last period in which the British were dominant).

Post-Edwardian, eras are more noted by the major events - that is the First World War, the Inter War, the Second World War, the Cold War, the post-Cold War... the time of the Queen's reign won't be known as an era, nor is Charles' reign likely to do so either.
 
Britters said:
Again, King George VI was styled Albert, he chose not to be King Albert but King George, but was known privately as Bertie. Victoria was Princess Alexandrina (and was born to be Queen,), and chose to style herself Queen Victoria. It's been known to happen. He may choose to remain Charles in his private life, and become King George VII publicly as a nod to his Grandfather and grandmother. We won't know until the day comes. He could choose to remain Charles. Who knows. Perhaps he might feel restyling himself might distance himself from the name he has made as PoW. A rebirth as it may be. (Doubtful, but an argument I've heard made nonetheless).
Click to expand...
I know that that is what happend in the past (we're talking about 1837 and 1936); moreover, they were not expected to be the monarchs of their generation (Victoria was supposed to have cousins by her uncle William), so that was not the defining consideration when their parents picked their name (although it wasn't out of the question either). However, my argument was that nowadays that would be an unexpected move. Why make a nod to your grandfather by refusing the name your parents gave to you at birth in the full knowledge that you would be king one day?! And in that way taking away the nod that William and Catherine made by naming their son George.
 
It would be an unusual move today since Royals don't usually take a different name to the one they were known as... but it is not unprecedented and we can't say that It wont happen....
 
Unlikely; for 70/70+ years of his life he was known as Charles, so for 99,99% he will be known as Charles III (he was a direct heir since his birth).
 
:previous: I fully agree. It could happen but imo it is very unlikely - but I didn't talk to Charles so who knows what plans he has regarding his regnal name (my guess would be that Camilla's title is the one that is of more concern to him than his own name...)
 
Maybe he will chose not to be Charles as King, to use a different name, to define his Kingship as a different stage of his life?

Obviously either can happen. And we can make arguments for either choice.
 
O-H Anglophile said:
Maybe he will chose not to be Charles as King, to use a different name, to define his Kingship as a different stage of his life?

Obviously either can happen. And we can make arguments for either choice.
Click to expand...

The Prince of Wales to King Charles sound rather different to me :flowers: No need to start using a different name as if he were the pope :D
 
He MAy want to.... If he does, really want to, I'd say he's perfectly entitled..
 
Denville said:
He MAy want to.... If he does, really want to, I'd say he's perfectly entitled..
Click to expand...

I assume he could even legally change his name right now just like any other citizen if he really wants to - but that is evenmore unlikely (choosing a different regnal name is a possibility, it's all up to him) ?
 
I personally really hope he chooses to go by Charles, no reason to do away with the name all together for Monarchs. But given his popularity and what happened to Charles I I would understand if he chooses to go with George.

TBH when Charles ascends the throne I don't think his regnal name will be as interesting to the public as what Camilla's title will be.
 
I'm still holding out for Charles to be known as "Charles the Green". :D
 
I also prefer the name George to Charles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ista
General News for Charles III and Queen Camilla Part 2, February 2024-
2
Replies
54
Views
11K
Durham
D
Blog Real
King Vittorio Amadeo III (1726-1796) and Queen Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain
Replies
1
Views
360
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
Godchildren of King Charles III
Replies
5
Views
3K
SirGyamfi1
S
Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
603
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
  • Locked
Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 2
15 16 17
Replies
501
Views
53K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom