Of “recent” monarchs, Victoria, Edward VII, and George VI chose not to reign under their first given names, so why would people be upset? So long as there’s a Henry, William, George, or Edward among those given names, people should be assured.
It just seems to me that she knew he’d be in line when he was born, why not give him a first name that was more acceptable? Are those names pretty much the choices for male monarchs now? Or is there just a “black list” of unacceptable names like John and Charles?
It’s a long tradition amongst royalty – not only in Britain, but also in Europe generally, as well as in Asia – that they have the option of changing their names upon accession, so why should she think she has to try to pre-empt it?
And, it’s also my impression that it’s somewhat of a tradition at least in that particular family that the formal given name doesn’t necessarily have the same kind of significance that it has in, say, American culture. Louis Mountbatten was known to his family as “Dickie,” I believe, and not one of his given names is actually Richard.
I have an impression that this goes back at least as far as Victoria, who insisted that all male children in the family be named “Albert” after her husband.
So far as Charles is concerned, his name is Charles Phillip Arthur George. Of those four names, three are somewhat questionable for an English king. The last Charles was beheaded. There’s never been a King Phillip in English history and there are too many French, Spanish, and Portuguese kings with that name. And you’d have to be crazy to call yourself “King Arthur.”
So maybe Elizabeth always assumed that Charles would eventually end up as King George VII, but she didn’t want to have to go through the rest of her life with a son named so obviously after her father and grandfather.
As far as I recall the general reaction was that she was making a clever/humorous play on words.
While you were looking crap up on Wiki, you couldn’t notice that it wasn’t her Christmas speech, it was a speech given in November at the Guildhall to mark the 40th anniversary of her accession - a speech in which it was perfectly appropriate for her to reflect on whatever she chose. And as it was, she appears to have taken the opportunity to point out that it had been a “tumultuous” year all round, not only for her personally:
[QUOTE=Queen]
1992 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an ‘Annus Horribilis’. I suspect that I am not alone in thinking it so. Indeed, I suspect that there are very few people or institutions unaffected by these last months of worldwide turmoil and uncertainty.
[/QUOTE]
If you read the speech, it’s very different in tone and content to her Christmas messages. A jolly, invites-only Guildhall lunch is not the same as addressing the world. Her Christmas speech that year, according to Wiki, "addressed the importance of personal fortitude, as embodied by members of the armed services undertaking difficult peacekeeping duties, and Leonard Cheshire, who died that year. "
Especially since Arthur isn’t dead, he will come back when England needs him most.
The last Charles wasn’t beheaded, the first one was. There wasn’t much wrong with Charles II unless you consider having lots of mistresses and illegitimate children a problem, in which case you’d have to rule out almost all of the other previously-used names as well 
Sigh. No, of course that’s not what I meant. It was a minor issue which added to a whole bunch of others. Familiar with the expression, “the straw that broke the camel’s back”?
Many, but not all. For instance, her eldest son’s youngest son did not have Albert among his names.
But that prank backfired on the pranksters. The Queen turned out to be fully informed about Canadian politics and was able to carry out an intelligent dialogue with the supposed Prime Minister. And she did it all in fluent French.
The next day the radio host admitted, “Somebody ended up being embarassed by the joke we tried yesterday. And it wasn’t Her Majesty.”
That’s right, Charles II was actually a pretty popular King and in my life I’ve heard precisely zero chatter in the press about how scandalous it would be to have a Charles III. To be precise, in the UK it’s a non issue, whatever Charles ultimately chooses.
Agree, The greater concern is his character not is name. I really think he is going to struggle to live up to his Mother’s reputation.
That’s it. After the heartache around her Uncle and considering it was unlikely Princess Margaret would be Queen one day, Queen Elizabeth could have shown her more support.
Agree that it wasn’t done back then, but still a little cold for my liking on the part QEII.
On the other hand, Princess Margaret could have married whomsoever she wanted if she was prepared to give up her rights of royal succession for love. Which she mustn’t have been prepared to do.
I suspect that Elizabeth was not really offering that option either. From what I’ve read, the lesson that Elizabeth took from the Edward VIII situation was that members of the royal family ought to stay put and do their duty, even if it means giving up love.
Of course it was convenient for her, having at the age of 13 fallen in love with exactly the type of man her family approved of.
That is true, Dublin, but why should she?
I don’t know, Seamus, but equally; why should she not?
That said, of course, we are talking about more than fifty years ago. Times have changed for everyone, so looking at what was done so long by people who aren’t you or me and particularly people who were living a life of none of us could possibly imagine, ascribing motives to their actions is always going to be a tad on the haphazard side.