It’s crowned. At a coronation a person is crowned, no need for coronated.
Can he take any name he chooses?
There was an Eadred and an Eadwig in the 900s. Astonishing that there was never an Eadwig II amirite?
He would be King; I suppose he could be Eadwig if he liked. Tradition is to select one of their family names: Charles Philip Arthur George.
They tend not to go for pre-Norman names. Even in the numbers. Edward I followed Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor, and so ought to have been Edward IV. Edward VIII should have been Edward XI. I think Charles should go with Edward XII just for historical honesty.
According to this site (of questionable repute), one of the monarch’s duties is to sign legislation. AAUI, while the queen typically does this dutifully, there has been a time or two when she has refused to sign legislation, returning it to parliament with her objections. Presumably, if the monarch became excessively intrusive in the activities of actual governance, the parliament might seek to limit the crown’s power – except, the monarch would have to agree to this by signing the act. Perhaps the parliament would apply pressure by, say, withholding funding from Buckingham, or something like that.
See the Canadian dust-up on another thread: it isn’t worth the bother of unstitching it all and designing a replacement. They aren’t there to do what a US President does, they’re there to be like Hitchcock’s actors: know their lines, smile in the right places and not bump into the furniture. In effect, their job is to turn up at the events they’re invited to and make the kind of small talk that makes people feel good about themselves.
The money question depends on whether you think the revenue from the historic Crown estates should all go into general government expenditure rather than a proportion of it going on “head of state” expenditure (a lot of which would have to be spent on any replacement anyway).
Nothing like that has happened since Queen Anne in the early 18th century, and if she did it, there would be no end of a row.
There have been times where she has been known to try to get a Prime Minister not to involve her in controversy, but that has been done behind the scenes, with her private secretary saying to the Prime Minister’s private secretary something along the lines of “Are you sure? Of course, if you formally advise her in writing that she should, she will do it…” (thus making sure the PM would get any blame, which certainly stopped one idea in its tracks). But she knows she could never obstruct something that has already gone through Parliament. We did have an extended civil war about that, after all.
More’s the pity. I still vote for Eadwig.
Kong
Speaking as an American, this sentiment always looked to me like it was a byproduct of the Charles/Diana divorce, held mainly by the pro-Diana faction. With the passage of time (and the growing realization that Diana was kind of a bitch at times) I’d expect the skip-Charles attitude to have waned.
It would be better for the country than Charles being King. A long reign - of necessity started young - promotes stability and gives time for the Monarch to get to know people. Though Prince William isn’t that young himself.
Charles has repeatedly shown errors of judgement, right from an early age; William has not. Reports of Charles having someone to squeeze his toothpaste have not helped.
BTW For a regnal name, I hope a Scottish one is chosen. Not Macbeth, obviously! 
But there are good names like Kenneth, Alexander, and Robert.
ETA there was even a King William, so Prince William could unite the crowns further by taking William as a regnal name.
Just Asking Hypothetical Questions here:
If Chuck abdicates, does that have any effect on the line of succession?
When Uncle Ed quit, it changed the whole line of succession forever, giving the throne to kid brother Bert (who preferred George VI), and then to Elizabeth. But Ed didn’t have any kids of his own, did he?
If Charles forswears the throne before he succeeds, does it change the line of succession? Does the throne then go to William, or to Andrew? If Charles didn’t have any children, would it have gone to Andrew? (Or Anne, given that girls are in line too now?)
If Charles becomes king, however briefly, and then abdicates, does the throne then go to William?
There are no standing procedures for when the heir to the throne (or the monarch) asks to be removed. It has never happened before and it would probably be illegal for him to do it unilaterally. If a law was passed to facilitate such a change, it could do literally anything, as Parliament is supreme. Realistically, though, I can’t imagine anything that would result in the displacement of his children, especially in favor of Andrew who is not very popular right now.
ETA: Actually, he could convert to Catholicism. That would be neat and tidy and it would be just like he didn’t exist, with things going straight to William.
The recent change has no effect on anybody born before 2011. Anne still comes after all her brothers and their descendants (but if William has another son, that son will come after Princess Charlotte).
I believe Elizabeth II is now the longest serving British monarch.
For nearly half a day, yes. In a few days, she will move past Anton Günther of Oldenburg to take 47th overall. In a couple weeks plus, she will pass Albert Anton of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt. She is chasing Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX of Thailand), the only living monarch to be sitting longer – he is at #22, with a five and a half year lead. If she catches up with #1 Sobhuza II of Swaziland, she will be about 107 years old.
Did Futurama ever have her as a talking head in a jar?
Agree-would love to see the Stuarts take over, it is their rightful place.
Charles II was cool.
Did not the line die out with Anne?
That will happen on the very same day that the Scots vote to leave the UK, causing heads to explode all over the island (as well as parts of Ireland, Man and Guernsey).
The Plantagenets would disagree.