One of the first decisions kings make when they ascend the throne is what their name will be. His grandfather, for instance, was Albert but chose the name George as his regnal name. (Very popular with that family although I can’t think why. Most of the Georges were perfectly dreadful rulers, as incompetent as they were short-sighted).
There was talk some years back that Charles’ admiration for George III (right, go figure) was leaning him towards George. Any more recent clues as to what his decision might be? I guess he could go with Charles III but there’s been a pretender king of that name so I think it unlikely. (Bonnie Prince Charlie styled himself Charles III when his father James, the Old Pretender, - son of James II - died.)
Don’t kings, popes, and such often (relatively speaking) take the name of a pretender/antipope in order to delegitimize the pretender’s claim?
He could be like Charles IX of Sweden, who would really be Charles III if he didn’t read too many medieval comic books and think they were real.
See also, psychokiller* Eric XIV. They were brothers, and did the same naming thing.
None of them really set the world on fire, but none of them were particularly incompetent (except when George III’s illness actively made him so), I don’t think. I’d say they were mediocre more than dreadful.
Yeah, but at least as of 30 years or so ago when I was in elementary school, George III was still the archvillain of the colonial era in US perspectives on history.
But that has never featured very largely in British assesments of their monarchs. George III is principally remembered for (a) reigning for a very long time, (b) going mad, and (c) being devoted to his wife while quarrelling violently with every single one of his (numerous) sons.
Well, Shelley was a radical (“I met murder on the way, he had a mask like Castlereagh”), so his views are not necessarily mainstream for his time. But even Shelley makes no mention of the loss of the American colonies in his negative appraisal of the king. (Though, presumably, he would have seen that as a good thing.)
No doubt the Peterloo massacre was a horrible thing, but I don’t think that incident in isolation sums up Hannoverian Britain. (And, for that matter, a lot of monarchs who history has remembered as great, such as Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Edward I, etc, ruled when larger massacres had occurred. The Peterloo massacre, as horrific as it was, killed 15 people. Queen Elizabeth’s Rathlin Island Massacre killed 500, Bloody Sunday killed 14.).
The fact is that Charles will not discuss it, and he certainly provided no strong and direct information on whether he plans to become King Charles, or something else; he insisted that he will not answer the question on the topic.
He will have the right to change his name, and he has does not have to speak to the idea before time !
IIRC, he refuses to discuss it because doing so anticipates his mother’s death. It’s a bit unseemly to be eager enough to ascend that you’re picking names while Mum’s still alive.
George V and VI are pretty well-beloved for their leadership during the world wars, though, and George IV’s reign seems to be thought of fondly by most.
George III was also quite respected at the time (although he had a healthy portion of the country also disliking him too, like John Wilkes!), he was proactive and seen as more down-to-earth than some of his forebears, and his responsibility for the loss of America was not a direct one.
