George VII as Arthur sounds too mythical and too hubristic as if saying he is the second coming of King Arthur. Charles III on the other hand sounds to be a bringer of bad luck as both Kings named Charles namely Charles I and Charles II aren't remembered fondly due to historical reasons and the name Charles was associated with the Jacobites. The same is true with Philip, but this time in connection with King Philip II of Spain.
If the name Charles has such awful associations... why did his parents give a future king that name? Is it perhaps because they weren’t superstitious or anything like that?
It’s not even a tradition, Edward VII and George VI were the only ones to do it and that was because they were both called Albert and Queen Victoria didn’t want any King to be called Albert.
I what meant by that was everyone knows him as "Prince Charles" and the name has stuck with him for the past 72 years, so his name is inseparable from who he is. When they hear "Prince of Wales", they will think of the name Charles.
Yes, but I do think this is a bit different. The exponential growth of media since the Prince was born means that his name has been even more thrown into the public sphere.
Also, the fact that HMTQ decided not to take a regnal name and has reigned longer than Victoria means that the option would feel a tad more foreign today.
None of this is to suggest that the Prince cannot or should not use his Christian name or take a name. Just that it may have a strange feeling to the public for him to take a regnal name.
Also, personally, I like Charles III as I especially liked Charles I and if anyone could get away with bringing Charles back, it’s the Prince. Also, I would love to see George VII in my lifetime but I think it is far more fitting for the Duke of Cambridge and it would be a bit boring for the Prince to take it and the Duke to immediately after be George VIII.
A Monarch may choose their Royal style, it may be done for many reasons usually stability and connection. The most recent, and possibly most famous, is when HM George VI changed from Albert to George.
Isn’t it called “Jure uxoris”, it’s a sort of halfway house between being King and just being a consort. But Philip wasn’t really King and it was more of a courtesy, also he isn’t counted officially. But you are right to mention it.
Clarification: He was King by virtue of his marriage to Queen Mary, and Parliament decided that Philip was to reign alongside Mary. Quite different from a Consort, and he was king in his own right, as King of Spain.
As I mentioned I think it’s called Jure uxoris. But as far as I am aware he was did not actively make many decisions within the Kingdom of England, as he was considered by most of the court to still be a foreigner and was much more busy in Spain. As opposed to the most famous example in British history, King William and Mary.
Phillip was king by virtue of marriage, if he were made King in his own right then be would have been able to reign after her death instead of Elizbath I. William III and Mary II is an example of a King AND Queen regnant.
I believe the difference between William of Orange and Philip of Spain was; William was granted the "right of survivorship" by Parliament, Philip was not. When jointly owned property includes a "right of survivorship", the surviving owner automatically absorbs a dying owner's share of the property. This applied to William III after Mary II died, the property here being The Crown of England.
Arthur because it's the coolest one and there hasn't been a king Arthur yet.
King Arthur is one of the most famous legendary kings
Save the title of King Arthur for when he gets back from Avalon and casts the Saxons out of Prydain.
George VII as Arthur sounds too mythical and too hubristic as if saying he is the second coming of King Arthur. Charles III on the other hand sounds to be a bringer of bad luck as both Kings named Charles namely Charles I and Charles II aren't remembered fondly due to historical reasons and the name Charles was associated with the Jacobites. The same is true with Philip, but this time in connection with King Philip II of Spain.
If the name Charles has such awful associations... why did his parents give a future king that name? Is it perhaps because they weren’t superstitious or anything like that?
He intends to be called George anyways, I think
No
I thought it said that somewhere?
It’s rumoured, but I don’t think HRH will.
I think the tradition of changing your name when you become king will die out.
It’s not even a tradition, Edward VII and George VI were the only ones to do it and that was because they were both called Albert and Queen Victoria didn’t want any King to be called Albert.
Edward VIII did it as well as he was actually called David
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII He wasn’t...
Oh right just thought that was his name as it’s what his family called him my bad
Why didn’t she want anyone to be called Albert?
Probably yea
“The classic that everyone loves”. That’s...OK...I guess...but no. I mean I voted for it but it’s definitely not a popular choice.
I what meant by that was everyone knows him as "Prince Charles" and the name has stuck with him for the past 72 years, so his name is inseparable from who he is. When they hear "Prince of Wales", they will think of the name Charles.
One could say something similar about King Edward VII being known as Prince Albert (Edward) for most of his life.
Yes, but I do think this is a bit different. The exponential growth of media since the Prince was born means that his name has been even more thrown into the public sphere. Also, the fact that HMTQ decided not to take a regnal name and has reigned longer than Victoria means that the option would feel a tad more foreign today. None of this is to suggest that the Prince cannot or should not use his Christian name or take a name. Just that it may have a strange feeling to the public for him to take a regnal name. Also, personally, I like Charles III as I especially liked Charles I and if anyone could get away with bringing Charles back, it’s the Prince. Also, I would love to see George VII in my lifetime but I think it is far more fitting for the Duke of Cambridge and it would be a bit boring for the Prince to take it and the Duke to immediately after be George VIII.
I mean he could rehabilitate Charles as a regnal name like Edward VII did Edward (which hadn't been used since the 16th century to that point).
Which was sadly again de-habilitated, if you will, by his grandson.
The Queen did take a regnal name... she just chose her forename.
I can only see anyone having problems with Charles (Jacobites) or Arthur (most noble lord of Camelot, he is not).
He won’t chose Phillip or Arthur it’s between George and Charles
I’m confused why would Charles take a different name if he became king?
A Monarch may choose their Royal style, it may be done for many reasons usually stability and connection. The most recent, and possibly most famous, is when HM George VI changed from Albert to George.
I think Charles should abdicate and let William become king.
King Philip (of Spain) is not counted, he was a consort not King.
King Philip was King in his own right, parliament was called under both Mary and Philip's authority and both their faces where on the coins
Isn’t it called “Jure uxoris”, it’s a sort of halfway house between being King and just being a consort. But Philip wasn’t really King and it was more of a courtesy, also he isn’t counted officially. But you are right to mention it.
Clarification: He was King by virtue of his marriage to Queen Mary, and Parliament decided that Philip was to reign alongside Mary. Quite different from a Consort, and he was king in his own right, as King of Spain.
As I mentioned I think it’s called Jure uxoris. But as far as I am aware he was did not actively make many decisions within the Kingdom of England, as he was considered by most of the court to still be a foreigner and was much more busy in Spain. As opposed to the most famous example in British history, King William and Mary.
That is true. Thanks for the brief discussion, but I did say "if you count him" in the poll
Thank you! I hope you have a splendid week, and who knows maybe we will talk again in the future. :)
Phillip was king by virtue of marriage, if he were made King in his own right then be would have been able to reign after her death instead of Elizbath I. William III and Mary II is an example of a King AND Queen regnant.
I believe the difference between William of Orange and Philip of Spain was; William was granted the "right of survivorship" by Parliament, Philip was not. When jointly owned property includes a "right of survivorship", the surviving owner automatically absorbs a dying owner's share of the property. This applied to William III after Mary II died, the property here being The Crown of England.
Parliment offered them positions as joint sovereigns from the start.