The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-03-2010, 12:43 PM
Markxxx Markxxx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 14,962
Can Prince Charles (UK) Choose Any Name When He Becomes King?

According to the Wikipedia, Prince Charles full name is "Charles Philip Arthur George"

I'm sure technically it's longer but we'll go with this

Anyway, if and when he becomes king, can he pick any name as his regnal name. I know some people said, he might rule as "George" to honor his grandfather but does it have to be one of those "Charles, Phillip, Arthur or George" names?

Could he choose, "Larry" or "Tyrone"? Or "Throatwobbler Mangrove" (of course that would be spelled "Luxury Yacht"

Last edited by Markxxx; 11-03-2010 at 12:44 PM.. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-03-2010, 12:51 PM
TruCelt TruCelt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 7,688
I have a vague memory that it's actually "Phillip Charles Arthur George." It seems to me that when they were wed, Princess Diana said "Charles Phillip. . ." and there was a kerfuffle about her having gotten the name wrong.

Was it actually the officiant who messed up?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-03-2010, 12:56 PM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,216
Technically, or in reality? The name you are referring to is the "regnal name", and in theory, it's Charles' prerogative to choose whatever name he likes. However, if he were to choose "John" or "Richard", let alone something silly, there would undoubtedly be an immense kerfluffle and a lot of pressure brought to bear.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-03-2010, 01:11 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
There was some minor controversy in Scotland when Elizabeth II became Queen , as there had never been an Elizabeth I of Scotland. (The king after the union of the crowns was styled James I (of England) and VI (of Scotland) for example.

MacCormick v Lord Advocate found that the styling of Queen Elizabeth as Elizabeth II was covered under Royal Prerogative. I can only assume that picking the actual regnal name also falls under this convention.

I'm no constitutional lawyer, mind.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-03-2010, 01:14 PM
yojimbo yojimbo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 9,280
There was a story a while back that he'd King George as Charles didn't really work out as a name for Kings in England.

Don't think it's ever been confirmed though. He can choose a different name though that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-03-2010, 01:21 PM
DCnDC DCnDC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
My vote is for King Larry. Or possibly King D'Brickashaw, because that is the most awesome name ever.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-03-2010, 01:38 PM
Mississippienne Mississippienne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by yojimbo View Post
There was a story a while back that he'd King George as Charles didn't really work out as a name for Kings in England.

Don't think it's ever been confirmed though. He can choose a different name though that's for sure.
Strange, because there's been two prior King Charleses of England. I think him being Charles III would be an excellent chance to bring back that name, make a nice break in the endless Georges and Edwards.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-03-2010, 01:44 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
It would be nice if he went for Arthur, since he'd be the first with that name -- the other King Arthur is mythical -- and he'd be the second half of Arturus rex quondam rex futurusque.

Last edited by Giles; 11-03-2010 at 01:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-03-2010, 01:51 PM
Zsofia Zsofia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippienne View Post
Strange, because there's been two prior King Charleses of England. I think him being Charles III would be an excellent chance to bring back that name, make a nice break in the endless Georges and Edwards.
The problem isn't that there have been Charleses. The problem is what happens to Charleses.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:04 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsofia View Post
The problem isn't that there have been Charleses. The problem is what happens to Charleses.
Charles II did just fine: not only did he regain the throne, but he knew how to keep out of too much trouble with the Parliament. (It was his younger brother James II and VII who lost the throne in the Glorious Revolution.)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:20 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The Glitter Palace
Posts: 17,229
Except for the unfaithfulness to his wife bit; that might strike a bit close to home...

We had a thread on this topic not long ago, and APB posted a link to a news item disavowing the suggestion that Charles had already decided to chose George as his regnal name. All of the different articles which mention that possibility all track back to one news item in the mid-90s, which was later disavowed by an anonymous friend of HRH.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Tristan Tristan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
I was under the impression, based on Charles conversion to Catholicism, that he would most likely abdicate the throne in favor of his son?

Or am I wrong on that account?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:34 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
I don't think Charles has converted to Catholicism. If he had, he would be out of the line of succession: he would not be able to abdicate, because he would not succeed to the throne.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:36 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,752
Charles has not converted to Catholicism. If he had, he would be ineligible to be king, he wouldn't have the option of abdicating.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:40 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
I was under the impression, based on Charles conversion to Catholicism, that he would most likely abdicate the throne in favor of his son?

Or am I wrong on that account?
Possibly misremembering? Tony Blair converted to Catholicism after stepping down as PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:42 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
I have a vague memory that it's actually "Phillip Charles Arthur George." It seems to me that when they were wed, Princess Diana said "Charles Phillip. . ." and there was a kerfuffle about her having gotten the name wrong.

Was it actually the officiant who messed up?
I watched it live and I remember this moment well. It was just Diana who messed it up.

His name is "Charles Phillip Arthur George."

The officiant said "Charles Phillip Arthur George."

Diana repeated it as "Charles Arthur Phillip George."

Last edited by Acsenray; 11-03-2010 at 02:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:45 PM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
My vote's for Victoria II. Vicky's such a regal name.

Is there any precedent for what happens if Chucky becomes a Vicky in more than name? (Other than moving those ears lower.)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:48 PM
matt_mcl matt_mcl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruCelt View Post
I have a vague memory that it's actually "Phillip Charles Arthur George." It seems to me that when they were wed, Princess Diana said "Charles Phillip. . ." and there was a kerfuffle about her having gotten the name wrong.

Was it actually the officiant who messed up?
No, she did, but not that way: his name is Charles Philip Arthur George and she said Charles Arthur Philip George.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by yabob View Post
Technically, or in reality? The name you are referring to is the "regnal name", and in theory, it's Charles' prerogative to choose whatever name he likes. However, if he were to choose "John" or "Richard", let alone something silly, there would undoubtedly be an immense kerfluffle and a lot of pressure brought to bear.
What's wrong with John or Richard?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-03-2010, 02:57 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
What's wrong with John or Richard?
The last King John and the last two King Richards (II and III) are generally agreed to be Bad Kings.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:00 PM
Maus Magill Maus Magill is offline
Not a real doctor.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
I was under the impression, based on Charles conversion to Catholicism, that he would most likely abdicate the throne in favor of his son?

Or am I wrong on that account?
You may be thinking of Tony Blair.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:04 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles View Post
The last King John and the last two King Richards (II and III) are generally agreed to be Bad Kings.
Wow, I was assuming that it was a joke, since John can mean 'toilet' and Richard can mean 'dick'.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:12 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
I was under the impression, based on Charles conversion to Catholicism, that he would most likely abdicate the throne in favor of his son?

Or am I wrong on that account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles View Post
The last King John and the last two King Richards (II and III) are generally agreed to be Bad Kings.
Charles is unlikely to pick "Charles III" for similar reasons. Charles I and Charles II were Stewarts, reigned during a tumultuous period, and Charles I was beheaded -- the name "Charles" is closely associated with the Stewart pretenders. "James" is unlikely to be used again for the same reason. My WAG is that Edward VIII has killed the name "Edward" for the future as well.

So, George VII, and then William V (or Henry IX, if it comes to that).

Albert is out, out of respect for Victoria's husband. And Arthur is out, out of respect for Henry VIII's elder brother. Unless the royal family suddenly gets creative, it's going to be George, William, Henry, Elizabeth, or Victoria, from now on.

Last edited by Acsenray; 11-03-2010 at 03:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:14 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,389
I think we can all agree that Tony Blair will never be king now.


Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:15 PM
Markxxx Markxxx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 14,962
So basically he can pick what name he wants. Yes, I understand there would be pressure if he picked a dumb name or an unpopular name (King Hitler for instance) but what I'm reading is there is no law that would forbid him or require someone else's approval.

I was asking about UK royalty in general, not Charles in specific.

So if he did pick a name no one liked, what could they do? Force him to abdicate? Not recognize him as king? Or become a republic?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:17 PM
Smeghead Smeghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
I think he should go with King Obama, just to mess with the world.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:18 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markxxx View Post
So basically he can pick what name he wants. Yes, I understand there would be pressure if he picked a dumb name or an unpopular name (King Hitler for instance) but what I'm reading is there is no law that would forbid him or require someone else's approval.

I was asking about UK royalty in general, not Charles in specific.

So if he did pick a name no one liked, what could they do? Force him to abdicate? Not recognize him as king? Or become a republic?
The monarch's job is to be as popular as he can manage, so it's not going to come to that.

It's very hard to get definitive answers to questions like this. There are too many unspoken rules and unexercised powers involved.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:19 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan View Post
I was under the impression, based on Charles conversion to Catholicism, that he would most likely abdicate the throne in favor of his son?

Or am I wrong on that account?
If he had in fact converted, the Act of Settlement would act to disqualify him. But what evidence is supposed to be there that he converted? That he visited the Pope once?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:22 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
t).

Unless the royal family suddenly gets creative, it's going to be George, William, Henry, Elizabeth, or Victoria, from now on.
I wonder if Mary is back in the game now, after QEII's grandmother. It might be different for a Queen regnant though.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:24 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markxxx View Post

So if he did pick a name no one liked, what could they do? Force him to abdicate? Not recognize him as king? Or become a republic?
Parliament can do whatever it likes with regard to the Royal Family. It's a foolish Monarch who disregards the "advice" of the Prime Minister.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:26 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
... And Arthur is out, out of respect for Henry VIII's elder brother.
I would not have thought that Arthur, Prince of Wales, would have spoiled the name. He died at the age of 15 more than 500 years ago, and his main contribution to history was his widow marrying his younger brother -- which led to problems between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. The problem really would be associations with the legendary King Arthur -- and that association might be positive, on the whole.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:28 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
I wonder if Mary is back in the game now, after QEII's grandmother. It might be different for a Queen regnant though.
I think Alexandra would be a possibility, too, even if it's a bit old-fashioned.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:35 PM
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 17,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
I watched it live and I remember this moment well. It was just Diana who messed it up.

His name is "Charles Phillip Arthur George."

The officiant said "Charles Phillip Arthur George."

Diana repeated it as "Charles Arthur Phillip George."
In the U.S., they probably would have repeated the whole thing later "out of an abundance of caution."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:38 PM
Eleanor of Aquitaine Eleanor of Aquitaine is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
Albert is out, out of respect for Victoria's husband. ...
I've seen this statement before, but I remember reading that Victoria decreed that henceforth all of the males in direct line to the throne should be given the name Albert, because she wanted the name to be used. I think she would have been thrilled with a bunch of King Alberts. The family obeyed her until Elizabeth didn't give Charles the name.

Edward VII was known as Prince Albert Edward, and I thought Victoria wanted him to become King Albert Edward, but he decided not to do it after her death, because a double name wasn't British custom. I think he used the excuse of honoring the name Albert by not using it?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:44 PM
Ximenean Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
I'll bet anyone a thousand newly-minted Charles III pound coins that he sticks to his actual name.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:45 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,389
Louis, Francis, Geoffrey, and Phillip are too Frenchy -- wouldn't go down well with the British public.

Robert is too closely associated with Scottish independence.

Andrew and Anthony just don't sound royal.

Stephen was a weak king. Matilda was a tyrant.

Isabelle sounds too foreign.

I wonder if Catherine or Anne might be ready to make a comeback?

Alexander and Nicholas are too czarist.

Paul, Peter, Samuel, Aaron, Jonathan, Daniel, David and other excessively Biblical names wouldn't fly.

Michael is too continental

Too common-sounding: Arnold, Brian, Alan, Donald, Douglas, Eugene, Leonard, Joseph, Roger

Too Saxon-sounding: Alfred, Edmund, Ernest

Too Nordic: Eric, Frederick



Hm ...

Terence? Lawrence? Kenneth (too Scottish)? Patrick (too Irish)? Vincent? Timothy? Thomas?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:01 PM
yabob yabob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
Charles is unlikely to pick "Charles III" for similar reasons. Charles I and Charles II were Stewarts, reigned during a tumultuous period, and Charles I was beheaded -- the name "Charles" is closely associated with the Stewart pretenders. "James" is unlikely to be used again for the same reason. My WAG is that Edward VIII has killed the name "Edward" for the future as well.

So, George VII, and then William V (or Henry IX, if it comes to that).

Albert is out, out of respect for Victoria's husband. And Arthur is out, out of respect for Henry VIII's elder brother. Unless the royal family suddenly gets creative, it's going to be George, William, Henry, Elizabeth, or Victoria, from now on.
Henry IX actually might have Jacobite problems, also, since Henry Benedict Stuart was the last Jacobite pretender anybody took seriously, and was styled Henry IX in those circles. Notably, he himself had better sense than to try to press his claim.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:03 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,389
With the relatively recent examples of

Albert Frederick Arthur George VI

Albert Edward VII

Alexandrina Victoria

... I think it's pretty even odds of Charles going with one of his other names.

And hasn't he already informally run the "George VII" idea up the flag and gotten general agreement?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:04 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 26,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by yabob View Post
Henry IX actually might have Jacobite problems, also, since Henry Benedict Stuart was the last Jacobite pretender anybody took seriously, and was styled Henry IX in those circles. Notably, he himself had better sense than to try to press his claim.
That's a good point. As I was writing it, the name "Henry IX" seemed to ring some kind of bell, but I didn't place it as a Jacobite name.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:30 PM
rocking chair rocking chair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
perhaps nigel? reginald? harold?

it is amazing how many names are "right out", rather difficult to name a heir to the crown.

just go with a name and make your own history with it.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:38 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocking chair View Post
perhaps nigel? reginald? harold?

it is amazing how many names are "right out", rather difficult to name a heir to the crown.

just go with a name and make your own history with it.
Here's what Elizabeth II came up with for her children:

Charles Philip Arthur George
Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise
Andrew Albert Christian Edward
Edward Antony Richard Louis

So she used Edward twice, and Louise/Louis is a very close pair. She also used some that would be pretty odd as the name of a British monarch -- Christian, Antony (King Tony anyone?) and Louis.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:41 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Well, the given names of the first 12 heirs in the line of succession:

1. Charles Philip Arthur George
2. William Arthur Philip Louis
3. Henry Charles Albert David
4. Andrew Albert Christian Edward
5. Beatrice Elizabeth Mary
6. Eugenie Victoria Helena
7. Edward Antony Richard Louis
8. James Alexander Philip Theo
9. Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary
10. Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise
11. Peter Mark Andrew
12. Zara Anne Elizabeth
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:45 PM
Giles Giles is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 11,921
I wish we could look forward to Queen Zara.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:50 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 10,457
Well, if Ohio goes to a monarchy, you could perhaps import her.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:51 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Louis is now firmly enshrined in the royal family lexicon of names, for a pretty good reason: Prince Philip's uncle, Earl Mountbatten of Burma and the closest thing any of the Queen's kids knew to a grandfather (Charles and Anne barely knew George VI before his death; the other two were born years after it). His father was also a Lord Louis Mountbatten, on a side branch of the royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 54,040
Quote:
I would not have thought that Arthur, Prince of Wales, would have spoiled the name. He died at the age of 15 more than 500 years ago, and his main contribution to history was his widow marrying his younger brother -- which led to problems between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. The problem really would be associations with the legendary King Arthur -- and that association might be positive, on the whole.
I gather that, to Brits, a modern King Arthur would feel about the same way that a Pope Peter would to Catholics. There's only one Pope Peter, and tradition has it that there will only ever be two, that the last Pope will also be named Peter.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-03-2010, 05:03 PM
KneadToKnow KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 23,869
nevermind

Last edited by KneadToKnow; 11-03-2010 at 05:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-03-2010, 05:19 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I gather that, to Brits, a modern King Arthur would feel about the same way that a Pope Peter would to Catholics. There's only one Pope Peter, and tradition has it that there will only ever be two, that the last Pope will also be named Peter.
The odds aren't bad that the next king of England would indeed be the last king, after which they abolish the monarchy. So Arthur might be the most appropriate of all names.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-03-2010, 05:31 PM
The Great Sun Jester The Great Sun Jester is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
...
I wonder if Catherine or Anne might be ready to make a comeback?
...
Catherine's a great name!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-03-2010, 05:40 PM
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
The odds aren't bad that the next king of England would indeed be the last king, after which they abolish the monarchy. So Arthur might be the most appropriate of all names.
Charles as the last King? Nah. There's no real republican sentiment in most of the UK. And the position isn't "King of England" FYI.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.