Will Charles Ever Reign?

[acdc1]

I always rather liked the idea of him being Charles III. It goes along with the whole spirit that inspired the Queen to name her first two Charles and Anne in the first place -- it revives the Stuart names, shows her very well-known pro-Scottish sentiments, after all the Queen is half-Scottish.
No matter what Charles and Charles II did won't reflect on Charles III. It was centuries ago that Charles I lambasted (sp?) Parliament for having the audacity to put him on trial, and almost as long when Charles II had like a gazillion mistresses! They won't ruin anything for Charles III. It's a good name and I think it sounds awesome, very regal and dignified.
I would be happy, of course, if he did go with George VII, and happier if he went with King Philip, though some might not like that so much considering the King Philip who married Queen Mary of the House of Tudor; he wasn't any nicer than the Charles'es in the Stuart house, was he? I guess you could point to many villains in history who bore the names Charles, Philip, and George..... kind of hard getting around that.....
I think Harry has the best one of all, though. He'd be King Henry IX, the first King Henry after the notorious polygamist, how cool is that?

OT, but why did the Queen name him Charles in the first place? Why not another George, or Edward? Was she up to date with English history at that time? I can't remember whether she was or not.

 

[selrahc4]

Was she up to date with English history at that time?

LOL, yes, very very very much so.

 

[Madame Royale]

I think it rediculous if he doesn't wish to be known as Charles III

 

[Polly]

I recently read a semi-scholarly book 'Elizabeth and Philip' (properly referenced and indexed) which was light on scuttlebutt, which I found refreshing.

In this book, the authors claim that when asked about her choice of name, the Princess answered that 'Charles was simply her favourite name', though they suggest that it may well have been an attempt to consolidate Scottish links as did the title 'Duke of Edinburgh' by referring back directly to the Stuart line and by de-emphasizing, yet again, the German line, since the Georges were Hanoverian.

I've often read that Charles will be known as King George VII when he assumes the throne. There is nothing unusual in this, if so, though personally, I prefer King Charles III

 

[BillW65]

I think it rediculous if he doesn't wish to be known as Charles III

My observation is, every monarch since William IV (exceptions being George V and Elizabeth II) have either changed thier names or contemplated it.

1. William IV wanted to go by his second name, Henry, and become Henry IX until it was pointed out that the last Stuart pretender was known by that name.

2. Queen Victoria, christened Alexandrina Victoria and proclaimed under that name, dropped her first name.

3. Her son, Edward VII, was known as Albert Edward as Prince of Wales.

4. Albert Victor, duke of Clarence, was known as Eddy in the family. I presume he would have been known as Edward if he lived to be king.

5. Edward VIII was officially given the name Edward at birth but went by the name of David in the family.

6. George VI's first name was Albert.

But I know all of you knew this any way.


If Charles keeps his name when he becomes king I won't be dissapointed. Nor would I be if he becomes George VII.

 

[Madame Royale]

If Charles keeps his name when he becomes king I won't be dissapointed. Nor would I be if he becomes George VII.

I would be. It's his name, the name his parents gave him. There is simply no need to use any name other than his own christian name.

And I personally think Charles III sounds much better than George VII.

 

[ysbel]

Even though George Harrison is my favorite Beatle, I much prefer a King Charles to a King George.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

My observation is, every monarch since William IV (exceptions being George V and Elizabeth II) have either changed thier names or contemplated it.

1. William IV wanted to go by his second name, Henry, and become Henry IX until it was pointed out that the last Stuart pretender was known by that name.

2. Queen Victoria, christened Alexandrina Victoria and proclaimed under that name, dropped her first name.

3. Her son, Edward VII, was known as Albert Edward as Prince of Wales.

4. Albert Victor, duke of Clarence, was known as Eddy in the family. I presume he would have been known as Edward if he lived to be king.

5. Edward VIII was officially given the name Edward at birth but went by the name of David in the family.

6. George VI's first name was Albert.

But I know all of you knew this any way.


If Charles keeps his name when he becomes king I won't be dissapointed. Nor would I be if he becomes George VII.

Well, I knew most of it (didn't know about William IV wanting to be a King Henry) but it was still fun to read! It's a very interesting idea, Charles using one of his middle names, one that I never thought of before now. I really like the name Charles and always thought Charles III sounds divine, and "Charles and Camilla" just goes so well together. I can imagine their cypher just now, the interlaced C's, so beautiful. "George and Camilla" just doesn't have the same ring.

 

[ysbel]

I think taking a different name was more normal when royals weren't referred to by their Christian names unless they were King. Edward was known as David to his family but to the public he was known for most of his life as the Prince of Wales. Likewise George VI was known for most of his life before he was King as the Duke of York. If you're not know by the name your family calls you, its a lot easier to switch a name.

I think Charles would have a hard time switching to George.

 

[RoyalKnottie]

I know that the Prince of Wales can use anyone of his 4 names when he becomes King but I guess I always assumed he would stick with Charles. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George and I could see him picking Charles III or George VII. Charles III simply because it is his first name. George VII as a throw back to his grandfather. Personally, I think the UK needs a King Arthur. That would be so cool but really corny.

 

[Roslyn]

I know that the Prince of Wales can use anyone of his 4 names when he becomes King but I guess I always assumed he would stick with Charles. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George and I could see him picking Charles III or George VII. Charles III simply because it is his first name. George VII as a throw back to his grandfather. Personally, I think the UK needs a King Arthur. That would be so cool but really corny.

I love the idea, but it would be a brave, brave man who would choose to be known as King Arthur in Charles' circumstances. Hasn't there already been enough controversy in his life?

 

[wymanda]

I think Harry has the best one of all, though. He'd be King Henry IX, the first King Henry after the notorious polygamist, how cool is that?

If you support the Jacobites then Harry would be Henry X as Bonnie Prince Charlies brother, Cardinal York was considered to be Henry IX. Considering that then perhaps Charles should be Charles IV?

 

[RukaDuch]

Prince Charles- Future king?

Hello everyone- I am very new- first post here. I just wanted to say hi to all and say how ADDICTING this forum is.
I have a question regarding Prince Charles and his eligibility to become king. I understand that with Diana deceased he was able to marry Camilla- but isn't it "against the rules" to become King if you marry a divorced woman? I thought this was why King Edward abdicated the throne. I would like your insights to this question- Thanks

 

[BeatrixFan]

No, that's not quite correct. After all, look at Henry VIII who was a divorcee himself several times over and still held the throne. Edward VIII was not barred from marrying Mrs Simpson because she was divorced, this was made a scapegoat reason. The real reason was that there were concerns over her personality, nationality and religious belief. She was also a handy way of shipping off a King who was causing the Government and the Church many sleepless nights. There's nothing that bars a man married to a divorced woman becoming King.

 

[branchg]

There is nothing in law preventing the King from being a divorcee or marrying a divorced woman. What happened in 1936 with Edward VIII was a combination of political, constitutional and social objections (The Church prohibited divorce at the time) to marrying Wallis Simpson.

 

[RukaDuch]

thanks so much for clearing it up for me- i see i can stand to do some "brushing up " on my royal IQ!!
thanks

 

[TheTruth]

I think the question is kind of 'closed' now. Charles, unless the Queen becomes crazy and change her plans (which I doubt), will be King. But you're right to ask RukaDuch, the question of the divorce is interesting. Other members have already answered, it doesn't provides him of becoming King. What's more complicated is the role of Camilla. Charles is determinate to make her Queen but from what I've heard Camilla is already pleased if she has the 'Queen Consort' title.

 

[jcbcode99]

King Charles III (or IV) whichever one works for me--he's been Prince Charles for so long, it would seen silly for him to be known as someone else. Besides, I quite agree-King Charles and Queen Camilla has a lovely ring to it.

 

[Warren]

Charles, unless the Queen becomes crazy and change her plans (which I doubt), will be King.

It doesn't matter what plans the Queen may have, Charles is her successor by law.
Succession to the Crown is determined by the Act of Settlement, and only the Parliament can change it.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I think the question is kind of 'closed' now. Charles, unless the Queen becomes crazy and change her plans (which I doubt), will be King. But you're right to ask RukaDuch, the question of the divorce is interesting. Other members have already answered, it doesn't provides him of becoming King. What's more complicated is the role of Camilla. Charles is determinate to make her Queen but from what I've heard Camilla is already pleased if she has the 'Queen Consort' title.

You mean, "Princess Consort"-title? because as wife of the king regnant she can only ever be Queen Consort, not more - and IMHO not less.

 

[Royal Fan]

Heres how I see it as wife wife of the POW She should be Princess of Wales and Queen Consort when the time comes Id say Charles will be 65. and he could live long enough to have a Golden Jubilee although hed be like 115 lol

 

[gfg02]

Few expat Britons see Camilla as 'the Queen'

Gulfnews: Few expat Britons see Camilla as 'the Queen'

 

[BeatrixFan]

And we care about expats because? Honestly, people leave this country and then expect us to take their demands on what should happen here.

 

[Skydragon]

The article is hilarious, it seems as if they asked all of 5 ex Brits, one of whom doesn't like the monarchy at all. The woman complained that they cost 'us' money when there are homeless people on the street, she didn't go on to say she gives any of her money to the homeless charities though!

 

[WindsorIII]

The numbers will continue to go up over the years as people see just how much Charles really loves Camilla. The one true thing in this article is the quote about their love standing the test of time.

This is what will win people over, because its true. You don't see to often a love that has stood for decades through all kinds of obstacles. This is what won me over, as I am a big Diana fan, but you cannot deny that Charles has loved this woman since he's been in his early twenties and never stopped loving her.

Its one of the best true love stories I've ever seen.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

You don't see to often a love that has stood for decades through all kinds of obstacles.

No, but look at his parents, gearing up for the diamond wedding! And the Queen Mother who really stayed married to the King for her entire life, as death couldn't sever their bond.

 

[scooter]

I think some of the coronation issue is going to depend to a certain degree on whether the Church decides to make the divorce and remarriage an issue. If they are still adament about not recognizing divorce, there is going to be a problem. I mean, how can he be Defender of the Faith (in it's present form) if he and his wife are both divorced and their prior relationship was the cause of both of their first marriages ending? Perhaps if she is not crowned as queen, the high muckety mucks in the church might not be as stubborn about Charles' divorce since as the first wife is dead, he would be technically a widower in the eyes of the church? For those of you who live in GB, has there been any softening of the stance of the CofE regarding divorce and remarriage? I was under the impression that this was the reason Charles and Camilla had to have a civil wedding and only a church 'service of dedication', rather than a wedding in the church? Which to me does not bode well for the coronation. But more than likely QEII will live 20+ more years, in which case, the CofE may have shifted before this becomes an issue. We shall see.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The Church of England does recognise divorce and remarriage. So there's no an issue Church wise.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

But more than likely QEII will live 20+ more years, in which case, the CofE may have shifted before this becomes an issue. We shall see.

Public opinion in general, I suspect, will be dramatically different. 20 years on? Oh yes. It will be largely fresh perspectives. People by then, I have no doubt, will be fully accustomed the "Charles and Camilla". I think Diana will be remembered always, but it will balance out more in the future. Remembering Diana will become more nostalgic in a healthy way (like remembering Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, etc.) and less obsessive or accusative. The balance will come. I have no doubt. It has to.

 

[BeatrixFan]

To be totally honest, I don't see the Church of England lasting as the established official Church for another 20 years but we're wildly off topic here. I still urge caution when suggesting that 102 year old can still make a good monarch.