I want some brave member of the Royal Family to name their kid Cnut
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.
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.
Prince Albert known as “Bertie” -> George VI
Prince Albert Edward, known as “Bertie” -> Edward VII
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?
Alberts and Berties don’t get to use their first given name.
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.
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.
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.
King Charles X. Does the number have to be consecutive?
No big deal. I’m sure nobody saw it.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.