Can Prince Charles (UK) Choose Any Name When He Becomes King?

There were actually two Prince Arthur’s, who were direct heirs. The older brother of Henry VIII, and then there was Arthur of Brittany, the son of Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany. He was considered to be the heir of King Richard I, (who had no offspring) after his father died. Unfortunately, that’s when the infamous Prince John stepped in, and there was a rebellion (some factions supporting John, some supporting Arthur), and Arthur then mysteriously disappeared. It’s pretty much assumed that John had him killed.

(Queen Victoria also had a son named Arthur – the Duke of Connaught. He was probably her favorite son. THAT Arthur was named after the Duke of Wellington, though)
Queen Victoria’s own name was actually considered to be rather short, but her uncle, the Prince Regent, forbade her parents from using several of the names they chose (Georgina, Elizabeth, Charlotte, etc) and would only allow Alexandrina, after the Tsar, and Victoria, after her own mother. As a child she went as “Drina”.

George V actually had an older brother who died when he was only 28. His name was Albert Victor Christian Edward and he was called “Eddy”. He was actually originally engaged to Queen Mary (well, before she became Queen, of course!), but then he died before they could marry. So she married George.
(There was a precedent here, in that the Tsarina Maria, George’s aunt, had originally been engaged to the Tsar’s older brother, Tsarevich Nicholas, but he died before they could marry, so she ended up marrying his brother, who would become Tsar Alexander III)

And when you married into the RUSSIAN royal family, you had to convert to Orthodoxy, and generally changed your name completely. The previously mentioned Tsarina was born Marie Sophie Fredrica Dagmar, was known as Princess Dagmar. When SHE converted to Orthodoxy, she became Maria Feodorvna. She was always called “Minnie”

Whew!

How were these individuals referred to by the public and press as princes? Were they Prince David or Prince Albert or whatever? Or were they described exclusively by their full titles (the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, etc.)?

Because nowadays it’s always Prince Charles or Charles the Prince of Wales, and it’s hard to think of him by any other name.

Edward VII – Prince Albert Edward
George V – Prince George
Edward VIII – Prince Edward
George VI – Prince Albert, and later the Duke of York (he was not Prince of Wales, since he was never the oldest living son of the sovereign)

Interesting. Any other ways the heir-apparent can make himself ineligible for the British throne, but without explicitly abdicating? By a conscious and voluntary act, I mean. Going mad or falling into a coma don’t count, for example.

How about accepting the monarchy of another nation, if it were offered? Or moving abroad and refusing to come home?

84 posts and no one has suggested…Kong?

Our monarch already is the monarch of other countries, and I suppose if say, Mozambique or Rwanda (both of which have successfully applied for membership of the Commonwealth without having ever been a British colony) was looking for a new figurehead that would be OK. That’s the sort of thing you expect monarchs to do.

If the heir just ran away I’m sure Parliament would adjust the succession in favour of the next on the list.

It has a pretty nice patriotic song. :slight_smile:

He’s quite fond of the cinema.

Perhaps he’ll be King Vidor.

According to the Wiki page, King Harald V of Norway is 67th in line to the throne, so if the top 66 people all died the thrones of Norway and the United Kingdom would be united. Something similar has happened in the past: for example, in 1714 the Elector of Hanover became King of Great Britain; in 1603 the King of Scotland became King of England. The personal union between Hanover and Great Britain ended in 1837 when Victoria became Queen of Great Britain, since she was not eligible to become Queen of Hanover. The personal union between Scotland and England ended in 1707 when the two kingdoms were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain. So there’s precedent.

Although her hubby drew the line at calling the next kid Prince Arnold Ziffel.

Marrying a divorcee …

Only if that divorcee is a Roman Catholic. The former Camilla Parker-Bowles was divorced with a still living husband. Charles was still able to marry her and keep his place in line for the throne. He just couldn’t marry in the Church of England; hence the civil ceremony at town hall.

There was never any actual legal bar to Edward VIII marrying Wallis Simpson; it was just that his government believed her to be morally unsuitable and threatened to resign en masse if he ignored their advice no to marry her. The only legal issue with the marriage itself was it couldn’t be a church service and it wasn’t legal for royalty to marry at a register office in the 1930s so the wedding wouldn’be had to take place in Scotland.

In that particular case though, he (Edward VIII) abdicated. He also did so after he was already king.

I was looking more for ways the heir-apparent could disqualify himself automatically, by violating some eligibility requirement — like converting to Catholicism, as Giles mentioned. (Or perhaps marrying a Catholic. Is that still a big no-no?)

And then marries Queen Latifah?

And adopts Prince?

They’d give birth to Baby Huey.

If a Catholic converted to the Church of England (like say, Juan Carlos, since he’s also a descendent of Queen Victoria through his grandmother), would he then be eligible for the throne?

I remember when William was born, radio station WAPL (“the Rockin’ Apple”, a hard-rock station in Appleton, WI) sent a bunch of baby gifts – WAPL t-shirts, bumper stickers, keychains, etc. Soon after, the royal family put together a public display of all the gifts which William had received; I always wondered if the WAPL stuff was displayed. :smiley:

Yes.

Interestingly, if someone in the line of succession embraces any non-Protestant religion, they are excluded. However they can marry someone of a non-Protestant religion and keep their place in the line of succession, provided their spouse is not a Catholic.

Yes.

Given royal intermarriages and cognatic inheritance (daughters inheriting before nephews), merging thrones this way (or at least pretences to thrones :dubious:) is rather common.

For example, when James VI became James I of England, not only was England united with Scotland, but the heir of William the Bastard’s 1066 Conquest was united with the heir of King Alfred the Great! (This goes back to the 11th century marriage between Malcolm III King of Scots and Saint Margaret, granddaughter of Edmund II of England whose untimely and unexplained death in 1016 marked the end of the Wessex dynasty.)

As a more extreme example, Alphonso XII King of Spain was also, according to separate “pretender theories,” the legitimate Kings of England, France and Portugal!

If the most commonly accepted Jacobite succession were recognized, the throne of Great Britain would be merged with Liechtenstein in the future - Franz, Duke of Bavaria, the current “rightful king” -> younger brother Max -> Max’s daughter Sophie, married to the Prince of Liechtenstein -> her kids.