You may be thinking of Tony Blair.
Wow, I was assuming that it was a joke, since John can mean ‘toilet’ and Richard can mean ‘dick’.
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.
I think we can all agree that Tony Blair will never be king now.
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?
I think he should go with King Obama, just to mess with the world.
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.
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?
I wonder if Mary is back in the game now, after QEII’s grandmother. It might be different for a Queen regnant though.
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.
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 think Alexandra would be a possibility, too, even if it’s a bit old-fashioned.
In the U.S., they probably would have repeated the whole thing later “out of an abundance of caution.”
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?
I’ll bet anyone a thousand newly-minted Charles III pound coins that he sticks to his actual name.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.