Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name

[Eskimo]

It would be ridiculous, IMO, for anyone (except the Pope) to adopt a different Regnal name in this day and age....esp. if you’re been known worldwide by your birth name for 70+ years

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

It would be ridiculous, IMO, for anyone (except the Pope) to adopt a different Regnal name in this day and age....esp. if you’re been known worldwide by your birth name for 70+ years

Agreed. I cannot imagine Charles using George. If he had ascended the throne 20-30 years ago, it was more of a possibility.

 

[Mbruno]

Agreed. I cannot imagine Charles using George. If he had ascended the throne 20-30 years ago, it was more of a possibility.

But George is one of Charles' given names. So technically he wouldn't be using a different name.

 

[ruaudladoube]

It's ultimately up to Charles, but I'd much rather he went with Charles if for no other reason than to break up the monotony of all the Georges and Edwards.
Just as I'd really prefer Denmark to have something other than the constant Christians and Frederiks.
I do want them to use names that have been used previously for monarchs, but change it up a bit occasionally.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

It's ultimately up to Charles, but I'd much rather he went with Charles if for no other reason than to break up the monotony of all the Georges and Edwards.
Just as I'd really prefer Denmark to have something other than the constant Christians and Frederiks.
I do want them to use names that have been used previously for monarchs, but change it up a bit occasionally.

I agree. I was kind of hoping CP Frederik and CP Mary may have gone and used another name, but they kept with tradition.

He could surprise us all and use Arthur!

 

[Curryong]

Please, please, a Charles instead of the string of male Kings named George! I read years ago that Charles considered the Stuarts an ill-starred family and therefore took against the name. Also read that he quite admires and especially likes his ancestor King George III. I’m with others here though. It would be very odd IMO to have a King George VII after knowing a royal as Prince Charles for over seven decades.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

I wouldn't take seriously any news about regnal name of future king when he has already stated that he will decide that when it day will come. So anyone hardly can know surely. And with my knowledge Daily Mail is not most reliable source anyway. Personally I bit doubt that Charles is going take another regnal name when he has been known as Charles already over 70 years and he hardly owuld reing very long anyway. So Charles III is more likely name than George VIII or something else.


And it is anyway bit boring use name what has used already many time and at one time there has been four kings known as George at row.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Áll of Prince Charles' first names have a regnal quality.

I think he will choose Charles, Arthur or George because there is an excess of King Philips right now. It will be interesting to see what comes about.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I seriously believe that Prince Charles will be Charles III.
A local man recalled that in the 1970s he saw an article in People magazine about the British Royal Family. He recalled that there was a mention even then that the Prince of Wales could reign as King Charles III.

 

[Biri]

He is 72 and all the world knows him as Charles, and his parents chose Charles as the first name, so I doubt they believe it's an ill-fated name.

Whosoever believed such superstitions in XX century?

 

[Sandy345]

I do hope that he'll take George instead of Charles, since it is a very unfortunate name for a British Monarch. But the Daily Star whilst sometimes entertaining isn't really a serious source and they're just repeating old discussions on the subject.

I hope he stays with the name Charles. he's been known by that for over 70 years. Bring luck to the name Charles.

 

[Denville]

I hope he stays with the name Charles. he's been known by that for over 70 years. Bring luck to the name Charles.

How can anyone "bring luck" to a name? I think he'll stcik with Charles but I can understand him perhaps thinking it is a rather unlucky name...

 

[Alison H]

I assume he'll be Charles. He's been Charles for over 70 years. And Charles II was actually very popular - people in the 17th century seemed to think that having loads of mistresses and illegitimate kids was all jolly good fun, possibly on the grounds that anything was better than Cromwell!

 

[SLV]

If a bad monarch can make a name 'unlucky', a good monarch can do the reverse.

How can anyone "bring luck" to a name? I think he'll stcik with Charles but I can understand him perhaps thinking it is a rather unlucky name...

 

[Somebody]

I don't see any reason for Charles to pick a different regal name. His mother didn't and his parents seem to have picked a name that would be fitting for a king (just like Charles and Diana did for William and William and Catherine did for George). Elizabeth's father was not supposed to be king; and probably didn't consider 'Albert' regal enough?! His grandfather who was also known as Bertie picked Edward over Albert after all. Of course do not know what regnal name Albert Victor Christian Edward would have chosen had he reigned - but Edward seems likely for someone going by 'Eddy'.

But I guess, if they so pleased either one could pick one of the other names...
Charles Philip Arthur George
William Arthur Philip Louis
George Alexander Louis
We could have 2 Philips, 2 Arthurs or 2 Louis' in a row for example; or start a tradition in which George is used for every second generation - but I don't see why they would prefer that over using their own name.

Many people expected Willem-Alexander to be known as 'Willem IV' but he was very clear that his name was Willem-Alexander (Alex(ander) for friends and family), so he did not intend to become a Willem IV upon his ascension to the throne - comparing that naming convention to cows (Willem IV walks next to Bertha XIII in the meadow)

 

[Osipi]

I don't see any reason for Charles to pick a different regal name. His mother didn't and his parents seem to have picked a name that would be fitting for a king (just like Charles and Diana did for William and William and Catherine did for George). Elizabeth's father was not supposed to be king; and probably didn't consider 'Albert' regal enough?! His grandfather who was also known as Bertie picked Edward over Albert after all. Of course do not know what regnal name Albert Victor Christian Edward would have chosen had he reigned - but Edward seems likely for someone going by 'Eddy'.

I've often read that George VI decided on "George" for a regnal name to install a sense of continuity between his father, George V and himself due to the abdication of Edward VIII. I think he made a brilliant move there and *did* go on to being a strong king during the WWII years. ?

 

[irish_royalist]

It would be ridiculous, IMO, for anyone (except the Pope) to adopt a different Regnal name in this day and age....esp. if you’re been known worldwide by your birth name for 70+ years

Absolutely! For a man to decide to be known by a name different to that which he has been know by for over 70 years would be just ridiculous.
We should remember how Her Majesty The Queen replied in 1952 when asked what her regnal name would be - "My own, of course - what else?"

 

[An Ard Ri]

I assume he'll be Charles. He's been Charles for over 70 years. And Charles II was actually very popular - people in the 17th century seemed to think that having loads of mistresses and illegitimate kids was all jolly good fun, possibly on the grounds that anything was better than Cromwell!

Charles III would get my vote too.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I’m voting for H.M King Arthur Pendragon II

No but i’m sure it will be Charles III (perhaps Charles IV in Scotland ?)

Changing name when you’re in your mid-upper 70:s would be quite ridiculous...

Unless he really wants to go by George VII but i don’t see why he would... Even his grandfather George VI who knew him as a child, knew him as Charles and likely saw him as a future Charles III.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Prince Charles "to be crowned King George" when he succeeds
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...crownedking-george-succeeds-thequeen-21435847

The headline is regrettably inaccurate, as the article does not claim Charles will be crowned as King George. It merely reports that some "royal commentators" have speculated that he might or might not make that choice.

 

[Prinsara]

Elizabeth's father was not supposed to be king; and probably didn't consider 'Albert' regal enough?! His grandfather who was also known as Bertie picked Edward over Albert after all.

His parents picked a name fitting for a Prince Consort. His grandfather, fully expected to be "King Albert Edward", chose to be Edward either out of some very complicated psychology with both of his parents and/or as he politely said, that his father's name should stand alone.

In George VI's case, he had the option of being the first King Albert or going with continuity, as said. He chose not to rock the boat (more). But in neither case was it because of 'not regal enough'.

And they are the only two British monarchs who've had "regnal names", aside from Victoria who simply didn't like and wasn't known as "Alexandrina". Charles not reigning as Charles would still be the exception, not the rule.

 

[Somebody]

His parents picked a name fitting for a Prince Consort. His grandfather, fully expected to be "King Albert Edward", chose to be Edward either out of some very complicated psychology with both of his parents and/or as he politely said, that his father's name should stand alone.

In George VI's case, he had the option of being the first King Albert or going with continuity, as said. He chose not to rock the boat (more). But in neither case was it because of 'not regal enough'.

And they are the only two British monarchs who've had "regnal names", aside from Victoria who simply didn't like and wasn't known as "Alexandrina". Charles not reigning as Charles would still be the exception, not the rule.

Of which country was he supposed to be a prince consort? Did they have a specific princess in mind they wanted to marry him to from birth? The only queen that might need a prince consort would be queen Wilhelmina who was 15 years old at the time of his birth, so I don't think he was ever a serious contender.

Oh wait, you mean that he was named after Victoria's prince consort: of that I am aware. However, while Victoria and Albert wanted their descendants to all carry their name; that doesn't necessarily mean that it would be picked as the name for a future king. I don't expect a future reigning queen 'Máxima' in the Netherlands for example just because Willem-Alexander married someone who happened to have that name; or a future reigning queen Sonja in Norway...

 

[Alison H]

I think there was some speculation that Victoria might choose to be Elizabeth II, but she had no personal connection with the name Elizabeth, and I don't think she herself ever considered it. George VI wanted to stress continuity with his father's reign after the mess his brother made of things. Edward VII's the interesting one ... maybe he thought Edward was a more British-sounding name, but Albert had become a popular name in English-speaking countries by then anyway, or maybe it was just because he and his father didn't get on and he didn't want to reign under that name.

 

[Betsypaige]

I would love it if Charles were to choose to reign as George VII in honor of his grandfather....

 

[Biri]

He is 72 and throughout those years all the world knew him as Charles.

 

[Prinsara]

Oh wait, you mean that he was named after Victoria's prince consort: of that I am aware. However, while Victoria and Albert wanted their descendants to all carry their name; that doesn't necessarily mean that it would be picked as the name for a future king. I don't expect a future reigning queen 'Máxima' in the Netherlands for example just because Willem-Alexander married someone who happened to have that name; or a future reigning queen Sonja in Norway...

Again, Edward VII was supposed to be King Albert Edward and his son Eddy was meant to be King Albert Victor. Currently not seeing any value in consorts' names doesn't mean that Victoria and others didn't see it as regal.

 

[Denville]

Oh wait, you mean that he was named after Victoria's prince consort: of that I am aware. However, while Victoria and Albert wanted their descendants to all carry their name; that doesn't necessarily mean that it would be picked as the name for a future king. .

Certainly Victoria expected her son to reign as King Albert Edward.

 

[Denville]

I would love it if Charles were to choose to reign as George VII in honor of his grandfather....

I think its highly unlikely... Perhaps he liked the idea when he was younger.. but its never been definitively stated that he expressed such a wish.

 

[Denville]

Again, Edward VII was supposed to be King Albert Edward and his son Eddy was meant to be King Albert Victor. Currently not seeing any value in consorts' names doesn't mean that Victoria and others didn't see it as regal.

I'd forgotten about Albert Victor.. but yes Vic wanted a long line of Alberts with possibly a second name for some of them.

 

[Betsypaige]

He is 72 and throughout those years all the world knew him as Charles.

I know that, still doesn’t change my mind - the world would get used to it. If he stays as Charles, that’s fine...but I still prefer George VII