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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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