Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   British monarch names Brits like (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=889905)

Arkcon 02-11-2020 02:59 PM

British monarch names Brits like
 
So, the Star has a story that has been running for decades, that Charles, Prince of Wales may choose not to reign as King Charles, because of bad connotations. And I'm wondering ... so who cares about which connotations, and which ones matter?

He was christened Charles Philip Arthur George, and the Star says he wants to avoid connections with Charles I, the Beheaded, and Charles II, the Always Randy.

They say he's going for George. Hrm, not only is he stealing the thunder from the king two generations hence, but what about Charles the III, the Mad and Charles the IV, The Hugh Laurie as a Fop? That's what I think of, but maybe it doesn't seem that way to Brits.

What about Phillip? That's a new one. Too new? To foreign, given that's his father's name?

How about Arthur? Now there's a kings name that just pops. Think Arthurian ... or do you all think Weasley, the gingerest of all Harry Potter's close circle, instead?

RioRico 02-11-2020 03:04 PM

Is he limited to his birth names? Can't he be King Kong? Or King Midas?

zimaane 02-11-2020 03:12 PM

Iirc, he can choose any name he wishes. I've also heard that he would use George, in honor of his grandfather, George VI, who led the U.K. through World War 2. Not the worst idea, certainly.

Dead Cat 02-11-2020 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkcon (Post 22133275)
They say he's going for George. Hrm, not only is he stealing the thunder from the king two generations hence, but what about Charles the III, the Mad and Charles the IV, The Hugh Laurie as a Fop? That's what I think of, but maybe it doesn't seem that way to Brits.

You mean George III (the mad) and George IV (the regency fop) respectively. And you're right that they carry negative connotations, but we've had George V and George VI since then, both of whom commanded respect and admiration from the public for their stoicism through the two World Wars. I don't think "stealing thunder" from the potential George VIII is a concern, given he's unlikely to take the throne for at least half a century, if it's even still there at the time. And can then similarly choose a different regnal name if he wishes.

Ultimately, as you probably know, the Daily Star is just barely above the glossy gossip magazines in terms of a source of good journalism, and this is a non-story - Charles has never publicly discussed choosing a different regnal name. The other two kings Charles were over 300 years ago, it's really not an issue. People will judge him on his actions, not his name.

Having said that, I don't think King Arthur would fly - would look too much like he was trying to be something he's not (i.e. heroic). Phillip, to me, has too many connotations with the Spanish royal family. But really I don't particularly care what he chooses to call himself. In my view the royals are increasingly an irrelevance these days, though personally I don't want to see them replaced, and certainly not if it was by a president (the only realistic alternative).

Baron Greenback 02-11-2020 04:48 PM

He's been called Charles for over 70 years. His parents, grand-parents and his maternal great-grandmother all approved of the name. He's going to be Charles III.

IIRC the George thing is based on a speculative article in the Daily Mail from twenty-odd years ago.

Two Many Cats 02-11-2020 04:48 PM

Kingy McKingface

puzzlegal 02-11-2020 04:54 PM

I thought he'd let it be known that he didn't want to be king, and would let the crown pass to his son?

Dead Cat 02-11-2020 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puzzlegal (Post 22133495)
I thought he'd let it be known that he didn't want to be king, and would let the crown pass to his son?

Not that I know of - I believe this too is idle speculation from uninformed 'journalists'. Quite a few people hope he does, because they like William and don't like him, but I don't think there's enough of a groundswell of public opinion to make him seriously consider the idea.

Calavera 02-11-2020 05:06 PM

If his mum had died in the 90s I think there would have been a good chance he would have named himself George VII, since then he's basically had the statement dragged out of him that he intended to be Charles III, and then his grandson was named George; he will not be using George.

EinsteinsHund 02-11-2020 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico (Post 22133289)
Is he limited to his birth names? Can't he be King Kong? Or King Midas?

Or King Midas In Reverse?

Baron Greenback 02-11-2020 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puzzlegal (Post 22133495)
I thought he'd let it be known that he didn't want to be king, and would let the crown pass to his son?

Odd that the BBC never mentioned that!

Alessan 02-11-2020 06:00 PM

Ever notice that there's never been a John II? The royals are still pissed off about him signing away some of their rights.

Acsenray 02-11-2020 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puzzlegal (Post 22133495)
I thought he'd let it be known that he didn't want to be king, and would let the crown pass to his son?

No serious, credible, knowledgeable person or source has ever said this. It’s all wishful thinking serving for tabloid fodder.

Acsenray 02-11-2020 06:09 PM

My Wags—Charles and John and Richard are out for negative connotations, probably James and Stephen too

Arthur, Alfred, and Albert are our for positive connotations

Phillip and Louis are too continental

William, Henry, Edward, George, Elizabeth, Victoria, Anne are all good

Colibri 02-11-2020 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkcon (Post 22133275)
What about Phillip? That's a new one. Too new? To foreign, given that's his father's name?

Actually, there's been a previous King Philip of England, the husband of Mary I. Since he later became England's bitter enemy he's often not counted among its monarchs, but if he took that name Charles would technically be Philip II

UDS 02-11-2020 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 22133629)
My Wags—Charles and John and Richard are out for negative connotations, probably James and Stephen too

Arthur, Alfred, and Albert are our for positive connotations

Phillip and Louis are too continental

William, Henry, Edward, George, Elizabeth, Victoria, Anne are all good

In fairness, he is very unlikely to choose Elizabeth, Victoria or Anne as a regnal name.

MEBuckner 02-11-2020 06:52 PM

Back in the 13th century England came moderately close to having a King Alphonso. Boy, does that look weird as an English/British monarch's name; but I suppose if Alphonso had lived, he might have made a fine king (who knows?), they might be up to Alphonso VIII by now, and "Alphonso" might seem as quintessentially English a name as George or Victoria.

Acsenray 02-11-2020 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDS (Post 22133690)
In fairness, he is very unlikely to choose Elizabeth, Victoria or Anne as a regnal name.

What's fair about that?:dubious:

Acsenray 02-11-2020 06:59 PM

The Anglo-Saxon kings had several very nice names that haven't been used in centuries—Æthelred/Ethelred, Edmund, Harold, Godwin, Edgar, Eadred/Edred, Eadwig/Edwy

amarinth 02-11-2020 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 22133629)
William, Henry, Edward, George, Elizabeth, Victoria, Anne are all good

That could be a statement. He could be King Anne? Or would it be King Anne II?

(Obviously Elizabeth & Victoria are out. He wouldn't want to be compared to the two longer reigning monarchs.)

Aspidistra 02-11-2020 07:04 PM

I want some brave member of the Royal Family to name their kid Cnut

Tamerlane 02-11-2020 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessan (Post 22133609)
Ever notice that there's never been a John II? The royals are still pissed off about him signing away some of their rights.

Sheer luck. Henry III took the unusual step of adopting novel English family names for his sons - i.e. Edward and Edmund. But Edward I's eldest son and first heir was named John after his grandfather - unfortunately he died young. Had he lived he would have preceded the Alphonse MEBuckner mentioned and been John II. Edward II's second son was also named John( John of Eltham, who died age ~20 unmarried and without heirs while campaigning in Scotland ).

You have to remember that John's bad reputation has built over the centuries( and is a little exaggerated these days ). His medieval descendants weren't even remotely ashamed of him.

Philip of course was a Greek name introduced into the French royal house in the 11th century by the Russian queen of Henry I of France. It spread to Spain in the 16th century via the Habsburgs marrying into the cadet branch of the French royal family that were dukes of Burgundy. The heiress Mary of Burgundy was the granddaughter of duke Philip 'the Good' of Burgundy and she named her eldest son Philip( known as 'the Handsome' ), who was acknowledged as king of Castille as Philip I. His eldest son was the famous Charles V, king of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor.

Dewey Finn 02-11-2020 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico (Post 22133289)
Is he limited to his birth names? Can't he be King Kong? Or King Midas?

Actually, I thought it was customary that the name be one of the birthnames.

UDS 02-11-2020 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn (Post 22133830)
Actually, I thought it was customary that the name be one of the birthnames.

It always has been so far (and in fact most often has been the birthname by which the monarch was known when a prince, and which they use with family). But there are no legal constraints; if Charles decides to reign as King Zaphod Beeblebrox there is no law to prevent it.

Acsenray 02-11-2020 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDS (Post 22133893)
It always has been so far (and in fact most often has been the birthname by which the monarch was known when a prince, and which they use with family). But there are no legal constraints; if Charles decides to reign as King Zaphod Beeblebrox there is no law to prevent it.

Prince Albert known as “Bertie” -> George VI

Acsenray 02-11-2020 09:09 PM

Prince Albert Edward, known as “Bertie” -> Edward VII

septimus 02-11-2020 09:09 PM

Had Henry VIII's older brother lived, would he have been King Arthur?


But the talk of Charles' regnal name seems premature. What are bookies' odds he'll outlive his seemingly-immortal mother?

Acsenray 02-11-2020 09:10 PM

Alberts and Berties don’t get to use their first given name.

Acsenray 02-11-2020 09:11 PM

Why shouldn’t Charles live at least as long as his parents and grandmother?

EinsteinsHund 02-11-2020 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 22133917)
Why shouldn’t Charles live at least as long as his parents and grandmother?

I think all that matters is if he will live longer than Lizbeth. And that's a tough bitch, if I may say so as a dyed-in-the-wool republican from the continent.

Little Nemo 02-11-2020 10:16 PM

Maybe he'll throw out the double name rule and call himself King Charles Philip I. It breaks the King Charles jinx but still allows him to reign under a name that's familiar to his subjects.

Little Nemo 02-11-2020 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 22133904)
Prince Albert known as “Bertie” -> George VI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 22133910)
Prince Albert Edward, known as “Bertie” -> Edward VII

King Edward VIII, whose full birth name was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, was called David within the family.

septimus 02-11-2020 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22134024)
King Edward VIII, whose full birth name was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, was called David within the family.

Charles has a shorter name but still not short enough for his bride to repeat without error.

panache45 02-12-2020 12:14 AM

King Charles X. Does the number have to be consecutive?

Little Nemo 02-12-2020 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 22134096)

No big deal. I'm sure nobody saw it.

slash2k 02-12-2020 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 22133911)
Had Henry VIII's older brother lived, would he have been King Arthur?

That was the plan. Henry VII wanted to cement his fragile hold on the throne, so he had genealogists trace his descent from ancient British kings, and his queen was sent to Winchester (presumed site of the legendary Camelot) to give birth to their eldest son, Prince Arthur.

slash2k 02-12-2020 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessan (Post 22133609)
Ever notice that there's never been a John II? The royals are still pissed off about him signing away some of their rights.

In addition to the aforementioned John of Eltham and the short-lived son of Edward I, John has also been used for several other younger sons, including John of Lancaster (younger brother of Henry V), John of Gaunt (son of Edward III, father of Henry IV), and John of the United Kingdom, youngest brother of Edward VIII and George VI. It is more or less happenstance that none of these ever inherited the throne.

However, in recent generations John has apparently been seen as unlucky. Prince Alexander John was the youngest son of Edward VII and Alexandra of Denmark; he lived barely 24 hours. His nephew, John of the United Kingdom, died aged 13 after a severe epileptic seizure; he also had learning disabilities and was possibly autistic, and lived in seclusion for the last several years of his life. (And in Diana's family, her older brother John died shortly after birth.)

The Stafford Cripps 02-12-2020 03:44 AM

If we're discussing Saxon names for a British monarch, we need to also consider names from the Scottish line of kings, such as Cináed, Eochaid, Giric or Constantine. He could be Malcolm or Alexander.

To be more serious, David is there as an option - he would be David III in Scotland, and if they wanted to they could just call him King David in England, a bit like what currently happens with the "II" of Elizabeth being left off Scottish postboxes.

UDS 02-12-2020 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps (Post 22134252)
If we're discussing Saxon names for a British monarch, we need to also consider names from the Scottish line of kings, such as Cináed, Eochaid, Giric or Constantine. He could be Malcolm or Alexander.

To be more serious, David is there as an option - he would be David III in Scotland, and if they wanted to they could just call him King David in England, a bit like what currently happens with the "II" of Elizabeth being left off Scottish postboxes.

The present Queen is Elizabeth II in Scotland as well as in England. (Indeed, she's Elizabeth II in Australia.)

Scottish postboxes don't leave off the "II" of Elizabeth; they leave off the royal cipher altogether. They have a crown instead.

dtilque 02-12-2020 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessan (Post 22133609)
Ever notice that there's never been a John II? The royals are still pissed off about him signing away some of their rights.

There's never been a Stephen II either, and I don't think they have a reason to be pissed at the first one. Except for the two singletons, all English/British kings since 1066 have had one of 7 names: William, Henry, Richard, Charles, James, George, and Edward. I'd be surprised if the Royal family will ever choose different first name for a boy who's likely to inherit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by panache45 (Post 22134160)
King Charles X. Does the number have to be consecutive?

The number is not part of the name, so they don't get to choose it. It's used to distinguish one monarch from another of the same name and that's all.

This reminds me of a Encyclopedia Britannica I used to own. It had an entry for Malcom X which was alphebetized under M instead of X. So sequential entries were Malcom II, Malcom III, Malcom IV, (all Scottish kings) and then Malcom X. Makes you wonder why Malcoms V through IX didn't get entries.

Acsenray 02-12-2020 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22134163)
No big deal. I'm sure nobody saw it.

This is one of my most vivid childhood memories. I was 12 when Charles and Diana got married. We were visiting family friends and everyone was sitting around the TV watching the wedding. I pointed out to everyone immediately that she got his name mixed up.

UDS 02-12-2020 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtilque (Post 22134264)
There's never been a Stephen II either, and I don't think they have a reason to be pissed at the first one. Except for the two singletons, all English/British kings since 1066 have had one of 7 names: William, Henry, Richard, Charles, James, George, and Edward. I'd be surprised if the Royal family will ever choose different first name for a boy who's likely to inherit.

Interesting point. "George" is the most recent new entrant to this list (George I, 1714), and that only happened because, when he was christened, nobody had the remotest idea that he would one day reign in Britain; the events which were to bring him to the throne were not then foreseeable.

The previous new entrant to the list was "Charles"(Charles I, 1625) and he only came to the throne because of the death of his elder brother, who was christened Henry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtilque (Post 22134264)
The number is not part of the name, so they don't get to choose it. It's used to distinguish one monarch from another of the same name and that's all.

The number is part of the name, and is included in the accession proclamation.

There was some fuss over Elizabeth II being so named because a previous Elizabetth had reigned in England, while none had reigned in Scotland. By the time objections were raised she had already been proclaimed as Elizabeth II but, since the crown is the fount of honours there was in principle nothing to stop the issue of a new proclamation varying this. That wasn't done, of course. I believe the solution, or possibly rationalisation, adopted was that the monarch should have whichever post-nominal number would be higher as between the English and Scottish lines of succession, so a hypothetical future King James would be James VIII, while a Henry would be Henry IX.

Acsenray 02-12-2020 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtilque (Post 22134264)
There's never been a Stephen II either, and I don't think they have a reason to be pissed at the first one.

A long, unpleasant civil war, perhaps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDS (Post 22133690)
In fairness, he is very unlikely to choose Elizabeth, Victoria or Anne as a regnal name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amarinth (Post 22133714)
That could be a statement. He could be King Anne? Or would it be King Anne II?

(Obviously Elizabeth & Victoria are out. He wouldn't want to be compared to the two longer reigning monarchs.)

Mary, Matilda, Maude, and Jane are probably also out.

Well, maybe not Mary.

The Stafford Cripps 02-12-2020 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UDS (Post 22134261)
The present Queen is Elizabeth II in Scotland as well as in England.

Yes, I know that under the current law he would officially be David III throughout the UK, but what I'm saying is that that could easily be semi-officially ignored, or officially changed with a simple majority in parliament.

As it happens, I've seen 2 postboxes this morning with GR on them. They presumably mean George V but it shows the number isn't required even in the current setup.

So much will be different from when the Queen ascended to the throne. Who knows, Australia, Jamaica etc could begin their own naming systems. More to the point, they may decide that if Charles wants to be head of state, he needs to physically attend a separate coronation in Canberra, Kingston or wherever.

PatrickLondon 02-12-2020 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps (Post 22134317)
As it happens, I've seen 2 postboxes this morning with GR on them. They presumably mean George V but it shows the number isn't required even in the current setup.

George V was the first George to be monarch in the era of pillar boxes. And if memory serves, his badge/device/monogram/whatever-the-heraldic-term-is was simply GR for all purposes. Whereas his father had EVIIR, and both his sons included the number.

In the end that much comes down to what the new monarch, on advice, approves.

As for references in text, that's just custom and practice in any given context.

Ludovic 02-12-2020 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico (Post 22133289)
Can't he be King Kong?

If the British still owned leased a slice of China we could Stand Hong with Kong.

BrotherCadfael 02-12-2020 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22134020)
Maybe he'll throw out the double name rule and call himself King Charles Philip I. It breaks the King Charles jinx but still allows him to reign under a name that's familiar to his subjects.

Well, Albino Luciani had more or less the same idea. He didn't enjoy the new name for long, however...

MrAtoz 02-12-2020 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray (Post 22133712)
The Anglo-Saxon kings had several very nice names that haven't been used in centuries—Æthelred/Ethelred, Edmund, Harold, Godwin, Edgar, Eadred/Edred, Eadwig/Edwy

Or he could go back even further than that.

I say, go with Ida. It has historical precedent, and also makes him sound like your sweet elderly auntie.

SanVito 02-12-2020 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 22134020)
Maybe he'll throw out the double name rule and call himself King Charles Philip I. It breaks the King Charles jinx but still allows him to reign under a name that's familiar to his subjects.

The only place I've ever heard of this jinx is on this board. There's no issue with the name Charles - Charles II was a popular King who reigned at the time of the Enlightenment. So he shagged around a bit - well, so did Edward VII (also a popular King). Nobody cares.

Charles I was clearly a disaster - but there's plenty of Henrys and Edwards and Georges who've been awful, and we don't have a problem with those names.

If Charles was an issue, our present Queen wouldn't have chosen it.

Prince Charles has now been around for so long in the public consciousness that it would be really odd if he changed his name.

In my heart I would love a King Arthur.

SanVito 02-12-2020 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps (Post 22134317)
So much will be different from when the Queen ascended to the throne. Who knows, Australia, Jamaica etc could begin their own naming systems. More to the point, they may decide that if Charles wants to be head of state, he needs to physically attend a separate coronation in Canberra, Kingston or wherever.

Or more likely, they'll dispense with the monarchy altogether and find one of their own to be Head of State. I don't think anyone seriously expects the next monarch will retain all the Crown States.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.