Will the real "King Charles III" of Spain please stand up?

lordmarcovan · October 23, 2014 1:22AM

This coin, one of the last remaining remnants of my onetime trademark "Holey Coin Vest" collection, confused me mightily.

There was that CAROLVS monogram. Sure, that's easy enough: it's Latin for "Charles".

But beneath it was a Roman numeral "III", indicating Charles III.

This is where the confusion came in for me, because I already knew of Charles III, but thought of him as someone ruling up until the 1780s or so.

Surely he wasn't on the throne a couple of generations earlier, when this coin was struck in 1711?

He wasn't. Charles III of Spain didn't ascend the throne until 1759.

So what is his title doing on a coin from 1711?

The "III" was plainly below the CAROLVS monogram on the obverse, meaning Charles the Third.

Or could the "III" be a denomination, instead? That didn't make sense, either. Who ever heard of a weird denomination like a "three-reales" piece?

Besides, this coin was clearly marked as a two-reales piece on the reverse. And again on the reverse, it spelled out "CAROLVS III" as plain as day.

So it was indeed struck under the authority of somebody calling himself Charles III, Hispaniarum Rex (King of Spain).

Only now, after much headscratching and a little bit of Googling, did I discover that this coin was a pretender issue. How interesting!

It turns out that Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor styled himself as "Charles III of Spain" during the War of the Spanish Succession, which I'd never really heard much about or given any thought to until I was trying to solve the riddle of this coin.

What wonderful teachers these little round disks are, eh? I would bet you that at least 80% of my knowledge of world history comes from coins. They certainly didn't teach us much of it in public school in Georgia, I tell you.

Today, 300 years later, it doesn't help us much that monarchs and popes have never been terribly original in their names and titles, either. Look at France, with what, eighteen different kings named Louis? Or England, with their eight Henrys, eight Edwards, and six Georges.

Thank you, old silver coin, for teaching me a little history lesson today.

So that coin wasn't struck by the "real" Charles III after all.

This half-real I found with my metal detector features the more familiar bignosed fellow of that title, in the second to last year of his reign.

This, then, is the "real" Charles III we are more accustomed to seeing on coins.

But I found it fascinating that he wasn't the only one.

Post your Charles III coins, pretender or otherwise!

--->

LochNESS · October 23, 2014 1:45AM

The idea of monarchs having different titles for each country under their rule always confused me in school. Here she's a queen, there she's a duchess, and over there she's married to the king but uses a goegrqphical reference like "Marie of Algernon" or "Lord M of Savannah." So confusing.

lordmarcovan · October 23, 2014 1:48AM

Oh, yeah. Don't even get us started on dukes and duchesses and Lord so-and-so of so-and-so, like you said.

WillieBoyd2 · October 23, 2014 1:49AM

I always liked King James I of England who was King James VI of Scotland.

PatAR · October 23, 2014 1:51AM

A neat piece, LM. Thanks for posting it. I agree that coins teach us a lot. I've read of the history of Spain as part of my studies of coins of Isabel II. I found it interesting that Charles III (the other one that reigned 1759-1788) was an enlightened leader who promoted advancement of arts and science and had a sincere desire to improve the country for the benefit of its citizens. He was apparently well liked by the people of Spain and had a measure of success in his attempts to improve the country before his successors essentially undid his work. Since learning that I've found the 8 reales of his reign that much more appealing as a result. My 1766 Lima 8R (haven't imaged it, but will post when I do) reminds me of ol' Charlie whenever I look at it.

Cheers,

Pat

lordmarcovan · October 23, 2014 2:21AM

Hi, Pat!

Thanks for pointing out an error I made. The "real" Charles III ascending the throne in 1759, that is.

I got confused by his birthdate in 1716, making me briefly think he had ascended not long after the pretender issued the coin above.

OriginalDan · October 23, 2014 2:38AM

Let's add some more confusion

Here are two coins, one Carolus III, one Carolus IV, same portrait.

Despite the death of Carlos III in December of 1788 and ascension of Carlos IV, Spanish colonies continued using the bust of Carlos III through 1789 and into 1790.

lordmarcovan · October 23, 2014 2:44AM

Same portrait, same year! Different guys.

That's neat, and two gorgeous toners. I particularly like the first.

Of course the "recycled portrait" (or imaginary, or cartoonish portrait) thing had a long history, dating back to the Roman emperors and medieval European kings.

LochNESS · October 23, 2014 3:21PM

<< <i>I always liked King James I of England who was King James VI of Scotland.

>>

Exactly

SaorAlba · October 23, 2014 9:01PM

<< <i>

<< <i>I always liked King James I of England who was King James VI of Scotland.

>>

Exactly

>>

If Prince Charles becomes king, he will be King Charles III - if he chooses Charles as his regnal name. There is precedent for changing names for the reign, King George VI's given name was Albert. As much as Queen Victoria wanted a King Albert in her descent, she likely may never realize that desire.

nicholasz219 · October 23, 2014 10:14PM

What also throws me, regardless of how much I read about regnal and noble folks is the titular changes when they are referred to in text like a history book. Lords and what not like mentioned above who have local addresses "Duke of Norfolk" and then also carry other titles elsewhere combined with history writers also trying to use the appropriate title in the appropriate forum and also not overuse pronouns and what not has me flipping back and forth in a book to make sure I am thinking about the right dang person.

I agree, in school it was super confusing.

lordmarcovan · October 23, 2014 10:32PM

Remember the John Goodman "King Ralph" movie, wherein a twist of fate makes an obscure American heir to the British throne?

I loved that movie, (intentionally-) stupid though it was, because who hasn't had that' "what if I became king [or queen] of England" daydream?

If it happened to me, my regnal name would be William V, for my middle name.

And it's possible-nay, probable- that there may really be a British King William V in our lifetime.

Of course if Scotland had become independent and reinstated their monarchy, I'd be another King Robert, I suppose.

(Because of my ancestry and extremely tenuous links to Robert the Bruce, the latter scenario is more "realistic", in a totally unrealistic way.)

Do you suppose those of us who collect old coins, particularly European ones, are more prone to be interested in monarchy's history and personalities than the average modern person? It was tempting to think that at first, but I guess I'm not so sure. Monarchs have always gotten the lion's share of historical attention.

LochNESS · October 25, 2014 2:38PM

Between the pope, monarchs, and hollywood actors changing their names ... does anyone really know who's in charge around here?

<< <i>I agree, in school it was super confusing. >>

Thanks for the admission. Nice to know I'm not the only crazy one around here

Will the real &quot;King Charles III&quot; of Spain please stand up?

Comments

Will the real "King Charles III" of Spain please stand up?