Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-11-2020, 02:59 PM
Arkcon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,067

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?
  #2  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:04 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,409
Is he limited to his birth names? Can't he be King Kong? Or King Midas?
  #3  
Old 02-11-2020, 03:12 PM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,172
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.

Last edited by zimaane; 02-11-2020 at 03:13 PM.
  #4  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:39 PM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkcon View Post
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).
  #5  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:48 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12,142
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.
  #6  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:48 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,319
Kingy McKingface
  #7  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:54 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,552
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?
  #8  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:57 PM
Dead Cat is offline
I was curious...
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
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.
  #9  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:06 PM
Calavera's Avatar
Calavera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 230
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.
  #10  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:34 PM
EinsteinsHund's Avatar
EinsteinsHund is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NRW, Germany
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Is he limited to his birth names? Can't he be King Kong? Or King Midas?
Or King Midas In Reverse?
__________________
And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
  #11  
Old 02-11-2020, 05:53 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
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!
  #12  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:00 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,344
Ever notice that there's never been a John II? The royals are still pissed off about him signing away some of their rights.
  #13  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:04 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
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.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #14  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:09 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
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
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #15  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:14 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 44,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkcon View Post
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
  #16  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:47 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
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.
  #17  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:52 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,382
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.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #18  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:54 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
In fairness, he is very unlikely to choose Elizabeth, Victoria or Anne as a regnal name.
What's fair about that?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #19  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:59 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
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
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #20  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:00 PM
amarinth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Emerald City, WA, USA
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
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.)

Last edited by amarinth; 02-11-2020 at 07:02 PM.
  #21  
Old 02-11-2020, 07:04 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,175
I want some brave member of the Royal Family to name their kid Cnut
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #22  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:02 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 14,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
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.
  #23  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:21 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 30,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
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.
  #24  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:58 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
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.
  #25  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:06 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
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
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #26  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:09 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Prince Albert Edward, known as “Bertie” -> Edward VII
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #27  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:09 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,112
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?
  #28  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:10 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Alberts and Berties don’t get to use their first given name.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-11-2020 at 09:10 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:11 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Why shouldn’t Charles live at least as long as his parents and grandmother?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #30  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:34 PM
EinsteinsHund's Avatar
EinsteinsHund is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NRW, Germany
Posts: 3,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
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.
__________________
And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
  #31  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:16 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,086
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.
  #32  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:19 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Prince Albert known as “Bertie” -> George VI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
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.
  #33  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:05 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
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.
  #34  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:14 AM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 55,729
King Charles X. Does the number have to be consecutive?
  #35  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:20 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 85,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
No big deal. I'm sure nobody saw it.
  #36  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:58 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
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.
  #37  
Old 02-12-2020, 01:26 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
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.)
  #38  
Old 02-12-2020, 03:44 AM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,475
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.
  #39  
Old 02-12-2020, 04:20 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps View Post
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.
  #40  
Old 02-12-2020, 04:32 AM
dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 7,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #41  
Old 02-12-2020, 04:46 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
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.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #42  
Old 02-12-2020, 04:52 AM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
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 View Post
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.
  #43  
Old 02-12-2020, 05:03 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 37,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
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 View Post
In fairness, he is very unlikely to choose Elizabeth, Victoria or Anne as a regnal name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarinth View Post
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.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-12-2020 at 05:03 AM.
  #44  
Old 02-12-2020, 05:57 AM
The Stafford Cripps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
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.
  #45  
Old 02-12-2020, 06:12 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps View Post
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.
  #46  
Old 02-12-2020, 06:27 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Can't he be King Kong?
If the British still owned leased a slice of China we could Stand Hong with Kong.

Last edited by Ludovic; 02-12-2020 at 06:27 AM.
  #47  
Old 02-12-2020, 07:27 AM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
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...
  #48  
Old 02-12-2020, 07:36 AM
MrAtoz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
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.
  #49  
Old 02-12-2020, 08:00 AM
SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
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.
  #50  
Old 02-12-2020, 08:03 AM
SanVito is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stafford Cripps View Post
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.
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 09:07 PM.

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.

 
Copyright © 2017