I am not sure there will be a Charles III as I read (some time ago, admittedly) that he is likely to take another name for kingly purposes... on account of Charleses ending up without heads to put the crown on.
I've heard that too, but surely if anyone had an excuse for that it would have been Charles II? On the other hand I suppose he had to keep his name as an "in your face" for the Roundheads.
I am not sure there will be a Charles III as I read (some time ago, admittedly) that he is likely to take another name for kingly purposes... on account of Charleses ending up without heads to put the crown on.
What name might he take, I wonder?
His full names are Charles Philip Arthur George. He could simply be Charles III, or he could be George VII (in deference to his grandfather, whose leading Christian name was actually Albert).
King Philip would sound like something out of Gilbert & Sullivan, or Monty Python, and King Arthur would inevitably lead to round-the-table jokes...
His full names are Charles Philip Arthur George. He could simply be Charles III, or he could be George VII (in deference to his grandfather, whose leading Christian name was actually Albert).
King Philip would sound like something out of Gilbert & Sullivan, or Monty Python, and King Arthur would inevitably lead to round-the-table jokes...
There's no actual rule that says he has to pick one of his baptismal names as his regnal name, although George has been the subject of popular speculation for a long time.
King Philip??!!! He’d have to be Philip 2 since Philip
1 was the consort of Mary Tudor
And I think for this reason, King Philip is vanishingly unlikely. English history likes to gloss over the fact that their marriage treaty meant that Philip of Spain was co-ruler with Mary I, although unlike William III, Philip's rule of England was only during Mary's lifetime.
I am not sure there will be a Charles III as I read (some time ago, admittedly) that he is likely to take another name for kingly purposes... on account of Charleses ending up without heads to put the crown on.
We've only had 2: 1 lost his head, the other regained the crown.
Other names? Philip - unlikely, the last was Philip II of Spain, spouse of Mary Tudir.
I am not sure there will be a Charles III as I read (some time ago, admittedly) that he is likely to take another name for kingly purposes... on account of Charleses ending up without heads to put the crown on.
We've only had 2: 1 lost his head, the other regained the crown.
Other names? Philip - unlikely, the last was Philip II of Spain, spouse of Mary Tudir.
Arthur - such a gift to lampooners, so no.
George - why not but I don't think it likely.
Yes, I'd forgotten about Philip II of Spain.
Did I see somewhere (I wonder) that he might take the regnal name Albert, which, as I mentioned, was his grandfather's name?
Doubt he has the capacity to do so. Another Merry Monarch would not go astray.
Not that he has any of the attributes of Charles 2 to make him attractive ( apart from that prize bitch Barbara Palmer his squeezes were generally Nice Gels).
Philip II of Spain (and yes, presumably Philip I - so far! - of England) does seem to have had some authority as co-ruler:
By the terms of their marriage treaty, he was to be co-ruler within Mary's lifetime. I'm far from an expert on this, but I had understood that it's a little unclear as to whether his position was supposed to be more akin to a joint and equal ruler (cf. William & Mary) or more akin to an assistant ruler (cf. Henry the Young King).
But I suspect that in practice, the monarchy will avoid the question of whether he deserves regnal numbers by not having a future King Philip.
Philip II of Spain (and yes, presumably Philip I - so far! - of England) does seem to have had some authority as co-ruler:
By the terms of their marriage treaty, he was to be co-ruler within Mary's lifetime. I'm far from an expert on this, but I had understood that it's a little unclear as to whether his position was supposed to be more akin to a joint and equal ruler (cf. William & Mary) or more akin to an assistant ruler (cf. Henry the Young King).
But I suspect that in practice, the monarchy will avoid the question of whether he deserves regnal numbers by not having a future King Philip.
His position appears to have been, officially at least, more akin to that of William and Mary, though it does indeed seem to be unclear as to how far his influence went.
King Edward VIII chose Edward as his regnal title, although he was known to his family and friends as David. Prince Charles' Christian names are Charles Philip Arthur George. Instead of becoming King Charles he might choose to become King George VII, or King Philip, or King Arthur.
King Edward VIII chose Edward as his regnal title, although he was known to his family and friends as David. Prince Charles' Christian names are Charles Philip Arthur George. Instead of becoming King Charles he might choose to become King George VII, or King Philip, or King Arthur.
King Arthur has a bit of a ring to it.
The choosing of a regnal title is a little bit exaggerated. My understanding is that in all cases of monarchs choosing regnal titles that were not names as they were known privately, that the regnal titles were middle names or secondary names.
Hence Prince Albert who became George VI, did have George as one of his names, and Edward VIII while he was known as David was baptized as Edward.
I know of no British monarch who chose a regnal title that was not a name that was already part of their long list of names.
Regarding "Arthur", my understanding is that the official line of the British throne descends from William I, so any King Arthur would be King Arthur I, irrespective of whether one believes in a historical King Arthur in the Celtic era.
Yes, regnal numbering starts with William I, hence the numbering of the Edwards being out by 3 because it ignores Edward the Elder (899-917), Edward the Martyr (975-1018) and Edward the Confessor (1042-66).
... Regarding "Arthur", my understanding is that the official line of the British throne descends from William I, so any King Arthur would be King Arthur I, irrespective of whether one believes in a historical King Arthur in the Celtic era.
I think the blood line actually has to descend from Cerdic who ruled Wessex c 520, but it's the numbering system that descends from William I. William I and II were technically either usurpers or only entitled by conquest. The lineage was corrected by Henry I's prudently marrying Matilda whose father was the king of Scotland and whose mother was the daughter of Edward the Exile, the Anglo-Saxon claimant, descended from Cerdic and Alfred. Stephen wasn't within that lineage but everyone else since has been.
What's a bit odd is that although Cerdic is supposed to have been an Anglo-Saxon invader, allegedly descended from Wodin, the name appears to be Welsh, not Anglo-Saxon!
As far as I know, even in the legends, Arthur and Guinevere had no children. So nobody can claim to be descended from them. Otherwise, they would probably have been added to the lineage at some stage.
Enoch, I stand corrected, that the regnal numbering is the issue with reference to William I.
In terms of blood legitimacy, I am reminded of a youtuber who stated plainly in reference to the wars of the roses, as in "no one at the end of the day, gave a crap if Henry Tudor had no blood legitimacy to the Throne, he had the biggest stick."
Regarding "Arthur", my understanding is that the official line of the British throne descends from William I, so any King Arthur would be King Arthur I, irrespective of whether one believes in a historical King Arthur in the Celtic era.
Untill there was another king called Arthur, he would simply be referred to as King Arthur. same as King John, King Stephen and Queen Victoria
I'm not sure that's quite right: Henry Tudor only had a big stick because enough people gave him one: even if they themselves didn't care they thought he had close enough to blood legitimacy that they could claim they did.
I'm not sure that's quite right: Henry Tudor only had a big stick because enough people gave him one: even if they themselves didn't care they thought he had close enough to blood legitimacy that they could claim they did.
Henry Tudor only got the throne because of the teachery of the Stanleys
The choosing of a regnal title is a little bit exaggerated. My understanding is that in all cases of monarchs choosing regnal titles that were not names as they were known privately, that the regnal titles were middle names or secondary names.
If there was to be a popular vote, I'd vote for Æthelstan, but you know we'd end up with Kingy McKingface.
--Re Arthur: I'd like it. But some might see it as a sign or metaphor that A *really* came back, and others might see the choice as disrespectful. (Whether they think he was a historical person, folklore, mixed, etc.)
Plus the constant teasing.
As to C being Arthur I...why not get ahead of the game, and be Arthur II? Would show humor, respect, and a bit of humility.
--Given that C is currently Prince of Wales, might a name from Welsh history, mythology, folklore, etc. be appropriate?
I am not sure there will be a Charles III as I read (some time ago, admittedly) that he is likely to take another name for kingly purposes... on account of Charleses ending up without heads to put the crown on.
One Charles lost his head. The other died quietly in his bed.
I am not sure there will be a Charles III as I read (some time ago, admittedly) that he is likely to take another name for kingly purposes... on account of Charleses ending up without heads to put the crown on.
One Charles lost his head. The other died quietly in his bed.
Neither of them could be regarded as shining examples for an aspiring monarch.
--Re Arthur: I'd like it. But some might see it as a sign or metaphor that A *really* came back, and others might see the choice as disrespectful. (Whether they think he was a historical person, folklore, mixed, etc.)
Plus the constant teasing.
As to C being Arthur I...why not get ahead of the game, and be Arthur II? Would show humor, respect, and a bit of humility.
--Given that C is currently Prince of Wales, might a name from Welsh history, mythology, folklore, etc. be appropriate?
Since it's the women of the Windsors (either by birth or married into the firm) who tend to be better and brighter, how about Queen Camilla?
Diana Spencer. Nil GCEs Sarah Ferguson...She did not shine academically but showed talent in swimming and tennis. At a young age, she developed an interest in skiing
When the current Queen was asked what name she would choose, she simply replied her own of course. I have heard that Charles would become George VII. Ridiculous. The first two George’s were appalling, 3 was bad and lost America, but number 4 was an overweight hoot and 5 and 6 a little dull. Why not just use his own name? Charles 1 lost his head but 2 restored the monarchy and fun.
George the First was often reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from Earth the Fourth descended,
God be praised! The Georges ended.
I am not sure there will be a Charles III as I read (some time ago, admittedly) that he is likely to take another name for kingly purposes... on account of Charleses ending up without heads to put the crown on.
One Charles lost his head. The other died quietly in his bed.
Neither of them could be regarded as shining examples for an aspiring monarch.
Charles II was the one who really started the transition to a figurehead monarchy. Besides, as Ladyleftfieldlover says, he restored fun (at least for the few who could afford it).
Henry VII's oldest son was called Arthur as a tribute to the Tudor family's Welsh heritage and Welsh followers. As Prince of Wales he had his own court at Ludlow. He would almost certainly have been King Arthur if he had not died shortly after marrying Catherine of Aragon. She was then passed on with a papal indulgence to his younger brother Henry.
Charles II was not by any means even the beginning of a transition to a figurehead monarchy. To avoid what happened to his father, or 'being sent on his travels again' as in due course happened to his brother, he had to work within a constitution rather than ignore it like his dad or a Czar. He was, though, King and let nobody forget it.
Comments
What name might he take, I wonder?
His full names are Charles Philip Arthur George. He could simply be Charles III, or he could be George VII (in deference to his grandfather, whose leading Christian name was actually Albert).
King Philip would sound like something out of Gilbert & Sullivan, or Monty Python, and King Arthur would inevitably lead to round-the-table jokes...
Bugger. VII. Not the Nazi...
1 was the consort of Mary Tudor
There's no actual rule that says he has to pick one of his baptismal names as his regnal name, although George has been the subject of popular speculation for a long time.
And I think for this reason, King Philip is vanishingly unlikely. English history likes to gloss over the fact that their marriage treaty meant that Philip of Spain was co-ruler with Mary I, although unlike William III, Philip's rule of England was only during Mary's lifetime.
We've only had 2: 1 lost his head, the other regained the crown.
Other names? Philip - unlikely, the last was Philip II of Spain, spouse of Mary Tudir.
Arthur - such a gift to lampooners, so no.
George - why not but I don't think it likely.
I will admit that I wasn't sure if it was a typo, or you being naughty...
Yes, I'd forgotten about Philip II of Spain.
Did I see somewhere (I wonder) that he might take the regnal name Albert, which, as I mentioned, was his grandfather's name?
I think George is the safe choice. Prince Charles might enjoy surprising everyone though.
Not that he has any of the attributes of Charles 2 to make him attractive ( apart from that prize bitch Barbara Palmer his squeezes were generally Nice Gels).
Philip II of Spain (and yes, presumably Philip I - so far! - of England) does seem to have had some authority as co-ruler:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain#Relations_with_England_and_Ireland
A little-known episode in English history, with much of the emphasis being on the religious ferment of those Reformation times...
By the terms of their marriage treaty, he was to be co-ruler within Mary's lifetime. I'm far from an expert on this, but I had understood that it's a little unclear as to whether his position was supposed to be more akin to a joint and equal ruler (cf. William & Mary) or more akin to an assistant ruler (cf. Henry the Young King).
But I suspect that in practice, the monarchy will avoid the question of whether he deserves regnal numbers by not having a future King Philip.
His position appears to have been, officially at least, more akin to that of William and Mary, though it does indeed seem to be unclear as to how far his influence went.
King Arthur has a bit of a ring to it.
Or, in the spirit of Milligna (sic), perhaps he could confuse everyone by calling himself King William.
How about King Bluebottle...or even King Neddy the Seagoon?
(RIP Spike Milligna, the well-known typing error)
The choosing of a regnal title is a little bit exaggerated. My understanding is that in all cases of monarchs choosing regnal titles that were not names as they were known privately, that the regnal titles were middle names or secondary names.
Hence Prince Albert who became George VI, did have George as one of his names, and Edward VIII while he was known as David was baptized as Edward.
I know of no British monarch who chose a regnal title that was not a name that was already part of their long list of names.
Regarding "Arthur", my understanding is that the official line of the British throne descends from William I, so any King Arthur would be King Arthur I, irrespective of whether one believes in a historical King Arthur in the Celtic era.
What's a bit odd is that although Cerdic is supposed to have been an Anglo-Saxon invader, allegedly descended from Wodin, the name appears to be Welsh, not Anglo-Saxon!
As far as I know, even in the legends, Arthur and Guinevere had no children. So nobody can claim to be descended from them. Otherwise, they would probably have been added to the lineage at some stage.
In terms of blood legitimacy, I am reminded of a youtuber who stated plainly in reference to the wars of the roses, as in "no one at the end of the day, gave a crap if Henry Tudor had no blood legitimacy to the Throne, he had the biggest stick."
Untill there was another king called Arthur, he would simply be referred to as King Arthur. same as King John, King Stephen and Queen Victoria
Henry Tudor only got the throne because of the teachery of the Stanleys
If there was to be a popular vote, I'd vote for Æthelstan, but you know we'd end up with Kingy McKingface.
Various:
--Re Arthur: I'd like it. But some might see it as a sign or metaphor that A *really* came back, and others might see the choice as disrespectful. (Whether they think he was a historical person, folklore, mixed, etc.)
Plus the constant teasing.
As to C being Arthur I...why not get ahead of the game, and be Arthur II? Would show humor, respect, and a bit of humility.
--Given that C is currently Prince of Wales, might a name from Welsh history, mythology, folklore, etc. be appropriate?
One Charles lost his head. The other died quietly in his bed.
Neither of them could be regarded as shining examples for an aspiring monarch.
I'd go for Princess Anne myself.
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from Earth the Fourth descended,
God be praised! The Georges ended.
-- Walter Savage Landor
Charles II was the one who really started the transition to a figurehead monarchy. Besides, as Ladyleftfieldlover says, he restored fun (at least for the few who could afford it).
In your view.
Do you mean "his work for injured ex-servicemen"?
I do indeed.
Charles II was not by any means even the beginning of a transition to a figurehead monarchy. To avoid what happened to his father, or 'being sent on his travels again' as in due course happened to his brother, he had to work within a constitution rather than ignore it like his dad or a Czar. He was, though, King and let nobody forget it.