Remember that the reference is to ears of wheat, not maize. Corn is the usual term for wheat or barley outside of the Western Hemisphere,
So, we could have a King Arthur on the throne! Fat chance 
Right, I knew that. But I still find it a little odd that “Charles” is among his names at all, given that (A) from the moment of his birth he was known to be next in line for the throne; and (B) the British royals have this aversion to there being a King Charles III (for understandable historical reasons).
So the royal discomfort is over a “King Charles” but not a “Prince Charles”, and that’s just kind of silly. If you’re going to be superstitious, be logical about it.
What do you mean, held on so long? Kept herself alive through force of will? Monarchs don’t retire. The job is for life - “The King is dead! Long live the King!” She won’t ever abdicate, nor should she. If she becomes too frail or senile to carry out the duties of the Crown, Charles will do them as Prince-Regent. But Elizabeth will be Queen till the day she dies.
And I don’t see why Charles can’t be a passable king. All the job entails is affixing his signature to bits of paper sent to him by Parliament. If he’s dimwitted enough to engage in Round XLIV of the Parliament v. Crown power struggle, Parliament will slap him upside the head and that will be that.
And I expect the only way the Crown passes directly to William is if Charles dies before his mother, which wouldn’t be terribly surprising but shouldn’t be expected.
Yes. It was a joke.
My Mom(should I say Mum?) still has her Bible, which was the NT and Psalms, given to her upon the coronation of the Queen. My mom was about 7 years old.
I hope she lives to 110.
I think the Brits regard the possibility of a “King Arthur” about the same way Catholics regard “Pope Peter”. There has been, is, and always will be only one.
It’s easy to be “classy” when whatever you do, by definition, comes to be the epitome of classy.
I’m an idiot who can never keep a shred of British history straight, and this thread has raised two I’m sure stupid questions in my mind:
- I get that things didn’t work out so well for the first King Charles, what with the beheading and all, but didn’t the monarchy come back with the second one? And isn’t at least one of the Georges most remembered for being completely crazy? Basically, what’s the great stigma to being a Charles rather than a George?
- Regardless of the above - can a future monarch just kind of pick a name? Are they just given a grab bag of names at birth and they can decide when needed which to officially ‘rule’ as? Would Charles need to legally change his name to rule as George (or anything else?)
On-topic, I’m not a big fan of monarchy in general, but must grudgingly admit I find the current queen somewhat adorable. She seems like an extremely polite old lady who can pull of fabulous hats, is very good at smiling and waving, and has excellent taste in pets. So, uh, go queen!
You are correct that it was what Americans know as wheat that was part of her wedding dress. It is a symbol of fertility. But corn means different things in different countries outside of the Western Hemisphere. According to the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, corn is a reference to oats in Scotland and Ireland.
It’s a little sad to give up my ancient image of the pretty princess in the dress with maize ears on it. But I’d rather be set straight. Thanks!
1/ Yes and Yes. Nevertheless both Charleses were doofuses and didn’t end well, whereas there have been 7 Edwards and they weren’t all disasters. Despite which I would not be at all surprised if he took the name Charles III, if only in an orgy of self-belief in order to rehabilitate the name.
- Yes, and Whatever they like. As with the pope he can call Himself Regnant as whatever the hell he likes. I’m hoping for King Cnut II.
1)(a) Charles II was a notorious womanizer. Given Prince Charles’ marital problems with the Princess of Wales, that’s not a particularly good precedent.
(b) George III did have a severe mental illness, and George IV was a wastrel. However, George V and George VI (Prince Charles great-grandfather and grandfather, respectively) were both models of modern constitutional monarchs. George VI was particularly well-respected for taking over when Edward VIII abdicated, and reigning during WWII - George was never supposed to be King, but he did a good job of it.
- they can use whichever of their baptismal names they wish. Since “George” is one of his baptismal names, he could choose to use that as his regnal name.
But you see we didn’t know that what we were seeing was “bad.” We were just thrilled with the idea of seeing an actual picture of something that had happened a few hours before in England. We didn’t know that television pictures would ever be any better. After all, they came from long distances through the sky. For us it was a miracle! When my father told me that someday the pictures would be in color, I just had never dreamed of it.
Maybe in a hundred years people will feel sorry for those who couldn’t experience a coronation in halographic reality projected all around.
Hey, my husband and I met on Commodore 64s. Who could ask for anything more?
No, her mother was the one with a real sense of style. The Queen is getting better lately, but she’s still rather stodgy, compared to the Queen Mum.
And Charles will probably outlive his mother, but have a relatively short reign. If he really wants to shake things up a bit, he should call himself Elizabeth III.
And yes, Zoe, we thought our b&w Zenith with the little round screen was da bomb.
And next to Philip, he of foot in mouth fame, how hard is it to look really good by comparison? The problem with monarchy is that every once in a while you get somebody like E2 and people think it is easy to be dignified all the time and then you get the George IV types tolerated as a result with the hopes it will be a short reign until the next good one.
Nitpick: Charles II was a supremely capable king. Sure, he had a thing for the ladies, but he was also an astute politician, a charismatic leader, and one of Britain’s greatest patrons of the arts and sciences. For proof of his abilities, look how fast everything fell apart under his dufus of a brother.
I’m personally all for Charles becoming Charles III. It’d be a welcome respite from endless Georges and Edwards. And anyway, no one wants William to use one of his other names when HE becomes king, and William IV (the last King Willie) had a bushel of illegitimate children with Dorothea Jordan, and was a notorious swearing sailor, besides.
Won’t ever-increasing longevity just lead to a series of geriatric monarchs?
Geriatric QEII, followed by geriatric Charles, then geriatric William, etc.
No. From memory, Charles was about 35 when William was born. Hence, if Charles lives to, say, 90, William will come to the throne at 55, which is hardly geriatric. In fact, it would be a fairly typical age for a President in a republic - perhaps even on the young side.
William is now 28 and seems to be in no hurry to produce an heir.
I’m firmly of the opinion that his ‘gaffes’ are pretty much orchestrated to make his wife look better or distract attention from other members of the family.
In the modern era - Victoria onwards - Britain has had a pretty good record, with only two short-reigned duffers (Edwards VII and VIII).