Cnut is a bit of a stretch
“I believe it was one of the last uses of The Royal Prerogative…”
“Some might say she overused The Royal Prerogative…”
“Some might say she underused The Royal Prerogative…”
“I’m certain that most would say nothing at all…”
“Yes, I think I’m one of those…”
– “The Royal Box”, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore with Jonathan Miller, Beyond the Fringe
Regarding Henry, James, John, Charles and other controversial monarchial names.
Would the Crown collapse if the heir apparent just reset the clock and announced he would be known as King Henry? Not Henry IX or whatever, just Henry.
I mean, his full title would be something like his mother’s: “by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith” etc., etc. Did all the old kings have all those appelations? So he really could be the first Henry oir James or Charles, King of All That and More.
Why don’t they just use their own names? I mean, George Bush didn’t become President Swanson! The concept of changing your name if your job title changes is weird…
Why wouldn’t someone named Charles become Prince Charles, and then King Charles? And all this monarchial gobble-de-gook be damned!
By nature of its very existence, members of the royal family are conservative and look to tradition. It’s pointless to propose such arguments because their very existence is based on aversion to innovation. Charles isn’t going to try anything crazy. If he outlives his mother he’ll serve until he did and pass the crown on to his heir.
Elizabeth has made it clear that she doesn’t approve of members of her family choosing abdication for any reason, not least because she believes that Edward VIII’s abdication sent her father to an early grave.
Louis Mountbatten was called “Dickie” and not one of his names was Richard.
It appears I was mistaken, on the whole “Charles is Catholic now” thing.
My apologies.
That being said, I imagine he will probably abdicate anyways. He has to be well aware that he’s not particularly popular.
IANAL, but I strongly doubt he will go with the name of that great mythical King: it would just seem too over the top.
His handsome son, William Arthur Philip Louis, on the other hand, might be able to get away with it.
(BTW, there’s been a least one Arthur Prince of Wales in line to take the “mythical” name: Henry VIII’s older brother (and brother-in-law!))
Bride not even knowing groom’s name?? Was that the beginning of their marital difficulties? :dubious:
It’s not even that she didn’t know it – she couldn’t even repeat it properly after being told it!
King Skippy the Wonder Dog. Everyone knows he was barking mad before taking the throne.
They are using their own names; they just have alot of middle names to choose from. It’s my understanding that up untill the 17th/18th century British (English/Scotting) royals didn’t have multiple names; they just had a single name given at baptism and that’s the name they used if they came to the throne.
Regarding the regnal numbering, hasn’t it been decided that in the future monarchs will use whichever number is higher instead of sticking with English numerals? Ie the next King James will be James IX instead of James III since Scotland had 7 kings with that name while England only had 2?
Edward VIII was Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. But while Edward was his first given name and his regnal name, he was called David within his family.
Little known fact: He wasn’t named Edward Albert in honor of his ancestors. Turns out Mary of Teck was a huge Green Acres fan.
King Cnut II, closely followed by Halfacnut VI.
Not by a long shot. That started when QEII forced him to marry the only 20yo virgin in the British aristocracy:
Well, your expertise in the matter, already demonstrated in this thread, commands us to consider your opinions.
I think it was the Hanoverians who introduced multiple names. George I (born in Germany in 1660) was christened “Georg Ludwig”; his son Georg August (born in Germany 1693) succeeded him as George II, and since then I think they’ve all had multiple names.
Until Victoria, they all chose the first of their Christian names, and the name by which they were actually known, as their regnal names. Victoria, however (christened Alexandrina Victoria, and apparently called “Drina” by her intimates) chose her second name.
Since Victoria, monarchs have more often than not chosen a regnal name which was not their first Christian name, or the name by which they were known to family and friends. Edward VII was “Bertie”, George V was “George”, Edward VIII was “David” and George VI was “Bertie”. In each case the family name was the first Christian name, except in the case of Edward VIII, whose first name was Edward and whose last name was David.
The style of the monarch is a matter for the monarch. There’s a well established custom of (a) choosing a name with which the monarch has actually been christened (b) choosing name that was the regnal name of at least one previous monarch and (c) not choosing Albert. But a monarch can disregard any or all of the these conventions. If Queen Elizabeth wishes from tomorrow to be known as Queen Bernard IX, she has only to issue a proclamation to that effect.
There would be issues in some Commonwealth countries, e.g. Australia, where an Act of parliament “assents” to the Queen adopting a particular style within Australia. There must be strong argument that, within Australia, she cannot adopt any other style without parliamentary assent. But so far as I know there is no such Act in the UK.
It was suggested in McCormack –v- Lord Advocate, the case in which the present Queen’s regnal numbering was questioned, that this would be the practice. But this will be a decision for the first person to ascend to the throne and choose a regnal name like Alexander or Kenneth, so it is premature to say that there has been a decision that this will be the case.
Worse than that. I thought you were absolutely not allowed to call someone a Cnut on this Baord.
He was also tired of people constantly calling while he was in the can.
Oops. I can’t call this a “typo.” “Thinko,” maybe? They were married to the same woman. Does that make Arthur to be Henry’s ex-husband-in-law?
“Queen Zara”. Sounds like a Flash Gordon character.
True, but Edward VII didn’t have the modern tabloid press to deal with.
And it would be awesome if her husband had “King Of The Impossible” as one of the many elements of his full title. 