OT: Prince Charles may become King George VII

Aethelred

FROM THE BBC:

The Prince of Wales has reportedly considered using the name George when he becomes King.

He has discussed ditching the title Charles III because of associations with some of the bloodiest periods in the monarchy's history, the Times says.

A number of kings in the past have adopted one of their middle names on ascension to the throne.

But Clarence House said that a choice would not be made until the coronation and the report was "idle speculation".

Four of the past six monarchs have adopted different titles, including The Queen's father George VI, who was christened Prince Albert.

A senior Royal official quoted in the Times said there had been an assumption the Prince would keep the name Charles.

Tribute?

The Prince of Wales was christened Charles Philip Arthur George.

Charles I was the only member of the monarchy to be executed, while there is said to be sensitivity about Bonnie Prince Charlie, the grandson of the deposed Catholic King James II.

Known as Charles III by supporters, he launched the 1745 Jacobite rising, the last Scottish campaign on English soil.

Former Buckingham Palace press spokesman Dickie Arbiter said by using the name George, Charles would be paying tribute to the both his grandparents.

"It would not just be a tribute to his grandfather, but a sort of loving memory to his late grandmother, whom he absolutely adored," Mr Arbiter told BBC Radio Five Live.

"When she died in 2002, he was absolutely devastated."

The Prince's great uncle, who became Edward VIII, was known as David by friends, one of his given names, said Mr Arbiter.

cacheman

dubya ain't gonna like that...he had first dibs!

Aethelred

<< <i>dubya ain't gonna like that...he had first dibs! >>



You think we may end up at war with the UK?

WillieBoyd2

How about "Henry IX"?

I'm Henry the Ninth I am
Henry the Ninth I am I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married eight times before.

AuldFartte

<< <i>How about "Henry IX"?

I'm Henry the Ninth I am
Henry the Ninth I am I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married eight times before.
>>





Seriously, I know several Brits and all seem to think that Charles will be crowned, then abdicate within 2 years of his coronation leaving William to become King at a rather early age. Public outcry about the whole Camilla thing will produce too much negative press for England, according to these folks. This will be one of his main reasons for abdicating.

Just stuff I've heard ... Not a damned fact in there, though.

ajaan

I think Charles will remain King until they pry the crown out of his dead hands.

I think I read somewhere that Charles was an admirer of George III. Go figure.

Conder101

<< <i>The Prince of Wales was christened Charles Philip Arthur George >>


How about King Arthur?

coinkat

Stranger things have happened such as the name of the House Of Windsor

wybrit

Here's my no-fact speculation.

In February, the Queen will have been 53 years on the throne and is currently a mere 79 years of age. Her Mum lived to be over 100. Chuckie can fantasize all he wants about his kingly name, but he may well never live to see the throne. Liz might be there for another 25 years!!!

Vicky's record 64 year reign is within reach. Don't think QEII isn't thinking about that as well...

MickeyD

I think the queen knows that her son is a twit and is holding on to the throne until William is old enough to be the king. Can you imagine queen Camilla.

questor54

<< <i>I think the queen knows that her son is a twit and is holding on to the throne until William is old enough to be the king. Can you imagine queen Camilla. >>



Prince William (would be William V?) and Prince Henry (would be Henry IX?) are old enough - they were old enough upon birth - there is no age requirement.

As part of the marriage agreement, it was agreed that Camilla would never have the title of Queen (or Queen-Consort?). Should Charles Phillip Arthur George Windsor reign (under whatever name) would Camilla take the title of Princess-Consort (the spouse of Elizabeth II is currently styled Prince-Consort) or would she retain the title of Duchess?

Emperor

<< <i>As part of the marriage agreement, it was agreed that Camilla would never have the title of Queen (or Queen-Consort?). Should Charles Phillip Arthur George Windsor reign (under whatever name) would Camilla take the title of Princess-Consort (the spouse of Elizabeth II is currently styled Prince-Consort) or would she retain the title of Duchess? >>



If Charles does become King, Camilla will become Queen automatically. See here.

kuhli

Of course there is always the possibility that Elizabeth could step down of her own accord, and appoint William as her successor, bypassing Charles (which she CAN do).

ajaan

Very interesting Emperor.

Emperor

<< <i>Of course there is always the possibility that Elizabeth could step down of her own accord, and appoint William as her successor, bypassing Charles (which she CAN do). >>



The Queen cannot do this unilaterally: she needs the assent of all Commonwealth members to change the order of succession. And to get that she would obviously need governmental cooperation from Tony Blair.

Aethelred

<< <i>The Queen cannot do this unilaterally: she needs the assent of all Commonwealth members to change the order of succession. And to get that she would obviously need governmental cooperation from Tony Blair. >>



This is of course something that will not happen just because the heir to the throne is unpopular and not very bright.

Sylvestius

I can't see what the fuss is about.

The British monarch these days is merely a figurehead. Sure they have powers to dissolve parliament and cause a great deal of trouble, but lets face it if they ever did try then well they'd be as good as committing political and dynastic suicide.

As far as i can see Elizabeth will rule till she dies (and should rule till death), if Charles is still alive he should succeed be it as Charles III or George VII (Frankly i prefer Charles III myself... i'm fed up of all these George's and Harries, come on Charlie use your imagination, how about Richard IV or Stephen II?). When he dies William will be next up as William V.


I know some European countries have had the old monarch steps down to let their successor up early, but why? No real point to it, it's not like the monarch actually does anything these days?

Charles is doing practically everything now (and has done all his adult life) that he will do as king, minus opening Parliament and giving the Christmas speech. How is he not up to the job of being king? As for the Camilla thing, seriously why is this a problem? Charles fell for Camilla way back in 1971 and they should have been married long, long ago. I dunno why but the media (the same media who hounded Diana to an early death and tried to report every detail of her life and practically destroyed it), suddenly seem to have become very pro-Diana as if she was a saint, thus Camilla is the 'bad' one. The media (tabloids) really need to get a life and let the future king get on with his.

wybrit

Methinks you're holding back. Tell us how you really feel about it, Sylvestius.

Seriously though, I can't say as I give a rat's tail about the Camilla vs Diana thing. The title of Queen doesn't mean much unless it's by succession, so it's much ado about nothing. As for the media, Diana was the goose who laid golden eggs for them on a continuous basis, so of course they despise Camilla.

Sylvestius

Funny you should mention that Wybrit...

I was holding back as it happens. Don't get me started on Diana, bad idea, i was never a fan.

wybrit

I have to say though, I love this parody!!

farthing

I agree with Sylvestius - Charles should have been allowed to marry Camilla the first time around. The concept that Charles bride had to be pure and high blue blood seems to be a peculiar British idea that the other royal houses have sensibly put aside.

Sylvestius

The British are just weird Farthing, trust me i've lived in the UK my whole life, and whilst i am quite happily British i have to say some of the stuff we do and believe in is well bordering on 'eccentric'.

The English particularly more than most.

Aethelred

What the British need are a few longboats full of Norse on the shore!

shirohniichan

<< <i>What the British need are a few longboats full of Norse on the shore! >>



Been there, done that.

I see a similarity between Elizabeth II and Victoria. Victoria did not like the idea of "Bertie" becoming king, and she held onto the throne her whole life. Do you think Elizabeth isn't too happy with Charles and will follow Victoria's example? I tend to think so.

Sylvestius

Perhaps Liz is worried that Charles will turn out like his dad. The Duke of Edinburgh makes alot of very silly remarks and some very racist remarks too. That's why they try and keep him out of the picture.


Here's a list of longest reigning monarch's of England (as i reckon it);

1) Victoria 1837-1901 = 63 years
2) George III 1760-1820 = 59-60 years
3) Henry III 1216-72 = 55-56 years
4) Elizabeth II 1952-Present = 53 years (and counting)
5) Edward III 1327-77 = 50 years
6) Elizabeth I 1558-1603 = 44 years
7) Henry VI 1422-61/70-71 = 40 years
8) Æthelred II 978-1016 = 38 years
9) Henry VIII 1509-47 = 37 years
10) Henry I 1100-35, Henry II 1154-89 & Edward I 1272-1307 = 35 years


Others that could make the list;

Charles II 1649-1685 = 36 years (although he was only officially recognised by Parliament in 1660)

and of course who could forget James VI of Scotland? 1567-1625 = 57-58 years.



Although the longest reign ever in European history belongs to Louis XIV of France 1643-1715 = 72 years.

So Elizabeth is the second longest reigning English monarch ever (after Henry III), the second longest reigning Scottish monarch ever (after James VI), and the fourth longest reigning British monarch.

She's got a long way to go to beat Louis XIV though, an accolade she'll not reach until 2024 when she's 98. Given her mother's longevity to 101 it's something which is not impossible.

Sylvestius

<< <i>What the British need are a few longboats full of Norse on the shore! >>



Scandinavians are alway welcome! Especially up here in Yorkshire, which was Viking land many years ago.

wybrit

Scandinavians are alway welcome!

As long as they're young and female, right Sylvestius?

Aethelred

<< <i>Scandinavians are alway welcome!

As long as they're young and female, right Sylvestius? >>



I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect Simon would answer "yes!"

Sylvestius

<< <i>

<< <i>Scandinavians are alway welcome!

As long as they're young and female, right Sylvestius? >>



I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect Simon would answer "yes!" >>




Hmm tough decision that, more norse women in the population would mean less women with faulty MC1R genes... and that'd never do.

Stork

Umm...you like redheads?

Sylvestius

<< <i>Umm...you like redheads? >>




You'd better believe it! (Understatement of the decade)

Conder101

I have the same "problem".

HTubbs

interesting...