Are the royals on the rocks?

1151618202142

Comments

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Like Edward VIII, I'm sure Charles III will pick up the crown better than can be expected.

    :naughty:
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    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. :flushed:
  • 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.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I like the idea of a Queen Nell. What about it Camilla?
  • Nenya wrote: »
    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. :flushed:

    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...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Like Edward VIII, I'm sure Charles III will pick up the crown better than can be expected.

    Bugger. VII. Not the Nazi...
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    King Philip??!!! He’d have to be Philip 2 since Philip
    1 was the consort of Mary Tudor
  • 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...

    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.
    Sojourner wrote: »
    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.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Nenya wrote: »
    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. :flushed:

    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.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Like Edward VIII, I'm sure Charles III will pick up the crown better than can be expected.

    Bugger. VII. Not the Nazi...

    I will admit that I wasn't sure if it was a typo, or you being naughty...
    Nenya wrote: »
    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. :flushed:

    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?

  • But Philip of Spain was not the King of England, he was Mary Tudor's consort. So any King Philip would be the First of England.

    I think George is the safe choice. Prince Charles might enjoy surprising everyone though.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    He wasn't just a consort, he was acknowledged as co-monarch.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    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).

  • But Philip of Spain was not the King of England, he was Mary Tudor's consort. So any King Philip would be the First of England.

    I think George is the safe choice. Prince Charles might enjoy surprising everyone though.

    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...
  • 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.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 5
    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.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Kevin
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    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.
  • Given Charles' deep love for the Goons, how about King Eccles? I think we can all agree that we could do without King Bloodnok.

    Or, in the spirit of Milligna (sic), perhaps he could confuse everyone by calling himself King William.
  • Given Charles' deep love for the Goons, how about King Eccles? I think we can all agree that we could do without King Bloodnok.

    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)
  • Boogie wrote: »
    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.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    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).
  • Slight correction - Edward the Martyr died in 978, not 1018.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Gary!
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited March 5
    ... 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."

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate

    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

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    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.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    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.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Henry Tudor only got the throne because of the treachery of the Stanleys
    I'm sure the Valois want credit too.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Cross-Pond.}

    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?

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nenya wrote: »
    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. :flushed:

    One Charles lost his head. The other died quietly in his bed.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Nenya wrote: »
    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. :flushed:

    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.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    {Cross-Pond.}

    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?
    That could apply to Arthur

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    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?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    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

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    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?

    I'd go for Princess Anne myself.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Huia wrote: »
    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?

    I'd go for Princess Anne myself.
    6 GCEs and 2 A levels

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Princess Anne got 3 A levels.
  • LadyleftfieldloverLadyleftfieldlover Shipmate Posts: 16
    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.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 6
    "Arvedui" would suit me.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    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.

    -- Walter Savage Landor
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Nenya wrote: »
    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. :flushed:

    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).
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I can remember when Harry was a young man who was much admired for his word for injured ex-servicemen etc. And now he's just some actresses husband.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    I can remember when Harry was a young man who was much admired for his word for injured ex-servicemen etc. And now he's just some actresses husband.

    In your view.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I can remember when Harry was a young man who was much admired for his word for injured ex-servicemen etc. And now he's just some actresses husband.

    Do you mean "his work for injured ex-servicemen"?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I can remember when Harry was a young man who was much admired for his word for injured ex-servicemen etc. And now he's just some actresses husband.

    Do you mean "his work for injured ex-servicemen"?

    I do indeed.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    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.

  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    A papal dispensation rather than an indulgence
Sign In or Register to comment.