That really pisses me off. There have been enough Kings named George. Why can’t he choose a name that nobody has had before? It’s like, he gets to choose whatever name he wants, so why wouldn’t he choose something unique? Not necessarily even something outlandish, just something unique. There hasn’t been a King Daniel or a King Michael or a King Christopher or a King Thomas, so why doesn’t he just pick a name like that? Why does he have to be so boring?
Was the first King Charles even that bad? I get the impression he was sort of a victim of an angry mob who hated him because he was married to a Catholic. Oliver Cromwell, who replaced him, wasn’t really any better, was he? I know that the Irish hate him. And the English eventually deposed him and replaced him with the monarchy, so he couldn’t have been that effective.
Wikipedia says:
“Cromwell is one of the most controversial figures in the history of the British Isles, considered a regicidal dictator by historians such as David Sharp, a military dictator by Winston Churchill, but a hero of liberty by John Milton, Thomas Carlyle, and Samuel Rawson Gardiner, and a class revolutionary by Leon Trotsky.”
Ehhhhh…if Leon Trotsky likes you, chances are you’re kind of fucked up.
She was born in the old Russian Empire in 1898, and lived from 1906-1921 in the U.S., it looks like: Golda Meir - Wikipedia. Don’t know if she was ever naturalized - U.S. immigration law was a bit looser back then.
Upthread someone said that the name is one of his existing names and his full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. I’m not sure if that’s custom or a hard requirement, but it seems it’s going to be one of those.
He was no friend of semi-modern conceptions of democracy and believed it was his way or ye olde heighhwayye. His downfall was a good part his pigheadedness. But Cromwell, while ostensibly for power invested in Parliament, was another side of the same coin, with additional religious fundamentalism (guess Trotsky ignored that?). The Wars of the Three Kingdoms were a brutal period with few good guys.
Cite, please, that he gets to pick whatever name he wants, rather than one of the names he was baptised with, in the Church of which he will be Governor?
As a person living in England, surely his choice of name is unencumbered by the law. If he wakes up tomorrow and decides his name is Bob…it is.
I guess “gets to” would encompass constitutional conventions as well as the actual law, but since it’s never happened, there’s no precedent for what other institutions would do if he decided to use any name of his choice.
That’s not entirely clear. I believe the provision could easily be read as “the last 14.”
As a person living in England, Charlie’s got all sorts of rights and options.
True, he could go by another name.
He could get involved in politics and stand for the House of Commons. Even if he doesn’t stand himself, he could hit the hustings and campaign for candidates of his choice.
As a person living in England, he could convert from Protestantism and the C of E to any other religion he fancied. He could choose to become a Buddhist, or a Roman Catholic monk.
As a citizen living in England, he could say, “I’m 70 and time to retire. I’m off to the Highlands for stag stalking and salmon fishing. No mobile, may never come back.”
Charlie Windsor could do all that.
Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Heir to the Throne, cannot do all that. He’s circumscribed by a millenium of customs and traditions that don’t have the force of law, but are effectively binding on him.
So, let’s get back to Jacquernagy’s impassioned post about how Charles could choose any name he wanted. If it’s so obvious to Jacquernagy that Charles could choose a name other than his baptismal names, he should be able to come up with examples of kings or queens of England / Great Britain / the United Kingdom who have done just that: reigned under a name other than one of the baptismal names they’ve had since birth.
Not really a “settled consensus” - more a plausible theory. Odds are that de Valera was illegitimate, but this doesn’t preclude his father having been a man called de Valera. And while no death record can be found for de Valera senior, this may simply reflect the fact that the family’s claims about his death (Colorado in 1886) were a fiction to disguise the fact that he had simply abandoned them, leaving town and adopting a new name.
This.
He can take any name he likes, more or less, not only because under English law anyone can, but also because as the sovereign he would be “the found of all honours” and can therefor regulate styles and titles - including his own - as an exercise of the royal prerogative.
But he is in practice constrained by tradition, precedent and expectations. No English monarch has ever used a regnal name which is not a name by which he was baptised. Charles is unlikely to set a new precedent here, because why would he?
If that’s the case, Hoover was not eligible to be elected President in 1928. He was living in London from 1915 to 1917, running the Belgian Food Relief Commission, as a private citizen.
Two points:
-
Residency is where a person lives with the intent to remain indefinitely. It is possible to stay somewhere for months or perhaps years without changing residency, if the duration is limited. If I take a three month vacation to London, I have not changed by residency. I’m not sure what Hoover’s intention was.
-
This has been a point of debate regarding whether Hoover was eligible.
The interpretation that a President must only have 14 years of residency whenever would seem silly as it would not require that he or she be a current resident. He could be 70 years old, having spent the last 56 years out of the country and still be eligible.
Equally silly would be if someone lived 50 years in the States, then moved to England for a year with intention of taking up residence, and then came back a year later. He’d be ineligible to be elected president until he turned 65, even though he’d lived 64 years in the States.
Getting back to the monarch’s changing names, I do acknowledge that Robert III, King of Scots, reigned under a name that was not his baptismal name. He was christened John, but came to the throne with weak support, so he reigned as Robert III, taking his father’s name.
However, Scottish monarchical precedents don’t seem to carry much weight with the British Royal Family, vide the numbering system for monarchs.
He can choose any name that he wants because he exists solely for my amusement. It’s like he’s a character in a book…a book that I am writing. Every day.
I read something, somewhere, that if there is ever another King James, he would be James VII of the United Kingdom.
That was Churchill’s suggestion when Elizabeth came to the throne. Scots nationalists objected to her being “Elizabeth II”, as there had never been an “Elizabeth I” of Scotland.
Churchill proposed that if a new monarch’s name had different numbers in England and Scotland, the new monarch should be counted from the higher of the two former monarchs of that name. A new King James would therefore be James VIII. A king Robert would be Robert IV, counting from Robert III of Scotland. A new king Constantine would be Constantine V.
Not really. As with any bright line rule, one could point to unfair applications, but I wouldn’t think that any country would be unreasonable for asking that its chief executive have determined to be a resident for the previous 14 years.
I believe my point stands, though. Imagine if Trump lived in the US from his birth until 1960, and he has lived with a remote Amazonian tribe since then and running for President from that remote village.
Must he become a resident if he wins? It makes a mockery of the residency requirement.
Oh, I’m imagining it, alright. It feels great.