The reign of King Charles III of the United Kingdom

Well, that’s one clinic staffer who’s looking for a new job.

In fairness, it would be awfully hard to resist. Even if you didn’t plan on selling the info.

It happens pretty often - but that doesn’t mean it’s “awfully hard” to resist , anymore than it’s “awfully hard” for someone who handles cash to resist stealing it. Mostly what it means is people don’t think they will get caught as long as they don’t sell it. I had access to a lot of information at my job - including a function that would tell me everything that was done in a particular record. Who made an entry, who changed an entry and who just looked at it. I’m sure 99% of my co-workers didn’t have any idea that function existed - until they got caught.

Every major corporation has regular training for worker bees that just because the computer will show you some bit of info doesn’t mean you have the right to access it. If you have a job need to look up XYZ, go right ahead and do your job. If you don’t, don’t. Not once not ever.

In the 90s one of the largest medical implant companies was in my town. Their main business was breast implants for the mass market. They also did very expensive custom implants for pecs, breasts, calves, etc. Being that it was a medical company, everything was serialized and linked to a particular patient. A number of my friends worked there as engineers.

Obviously access to the database was very restricted and searching it for Dolly Parton or whatever would end your career. The internal rumor was that celebs in the database used pseudonyms although they may have just said that to help stop searches.

Kings who ruled both England and Scotland have historically used two numbers when necessary. Charles’ 11-gt grandfather was called King James VI and I. In Scotland this new King should be called Charles IV and III.

Anyway, was he really restricted to choose one of his baptismal names? Couldn’t he have called himself King Ozymandias?

There wasn’t an earlier King Charles of Scotland than Charles I of both, so no.

As for the intrusion on medical records, there are statute laws that apply - certainly the Data Protection Act, possibly the Computer Misuse Act - as well as the rules on medical confidentiality. The hospital in this case is playing it by the book in referring it to the Information Commissioner, so someone might well have their collar felt, depending on the circumstances.

Nup.

During the time of James VI and I (and James VII and II) England and Scotland were separate kingdoms. They were still separate kingdoms when William and Mary came to the throne. Mary was the second monarch of that name both in Scotland (after Mary Stuart) and in England (after Mary Tudor) so she was “Mary II” both in England and Scotland, but William of Orange was William II in Scotland and Willam III in England.

But a different practice has prevailed since 1707, when the two kingdoms were united into single kingdom of Great Britain. The issue didn’t arise until William of Hanover came to the throne in 1830; he reigned as William IV; he didn’t use William III in Scotland. Nor did Edward VII, Edward VIII or Elizabeth II use a different regnal number in Scotland.

So, the precedent is that, since the two kingdoms were united, the monarch uses the same regnal number throughout the united kingdom. That has always been the number appropriate to England rather than Scotland though, as it happens, it has also always been the higher of the two numbers that would be appriate to either line of monarchs. So there’s still the hypothetical possiblity that, if the UK ever has (say) a King Alexander, he well be Alexander IV, since Scotland had three monarchs of that name.

Prince George Alexander Louis is going to have a golden opportunity in 60 years or so.

You’re thinking of the popes.

There’s only been one king in Britain who didn’t reign under his baptismal name: Robert III, King of Scots, who was baptized John. For political reasons, he adopted his father’s name when Robert II died.

That was in 1390.

Other than that, there’s no precedent for not reigning under the baptismal name, and the House of Windsor is very big on precedent.

Plus, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, why would the monarch not use their baptismal name?

I’m a newcomer here, and probably should have added an emoticon suggesting tongue-in-cheekiness.
But Charles Edward Louis John Sylvester Maria Casimir Stuart did take the regnal name King Charles III when he succeeded King James VIII and III in 1766. According to Wikipedia he was succeeded by Henry IX and I in 1788.

If I were a Scottish nationalist I might call the present monarch by some variant of “King Charles IV and III.”

I realise I’m perhaps too po-faced and pedantic, but Jacobitism ≠ Scottish nationalism. The union of parliaments was James VI/I’s pet project after all. And the Scottish Parliament had separately agreed to the replacement of James VII/II and later the Act of Settlement (though, agreed, the Union when it came was intended to make sure there’d be no route to backslide).

My sister retired from working at a hospital in the UCLA network. Way back when Britney Spears had her public meltdown, they had a group of employees terminated for accessing her medical records. And according to my sister, health providers keep tabs on people fired for such reasons, so the people terminated would have to leave the field or the area.

Celebrity travel arrangements are similarly sensitive in the travel industry since people are required by law to travel under their actual name, not a pseudonym.

I’ve carried a number of celebrities and political high rollers over the years. Don’t look was rule #1.

I’ve been noticing that although it’s now 2024, I haven’t seen a single King Charles coin. They are supposedly in circulation but I wonder if there was just a glut of QEII coins, and there’s not releasing many Charles coins, or what? Usually by about this time I’ve seen a 2024 coin, but not this year.

Are they all being salted away as souvenirs? If so, they won’t circulate until everyone has as many of them as they want.

Yes but remember the Stuarts in exile didn’t recognise the validity of the Act of Union. So they weren’t claiming to be Kings of Great Britain; rather, to be Kings of England and of Scotland. So they persisted with the dual regnal numbering system.

After the death of Henry Stuart in 1807, none of those who would have been entitled on a Jacobite legitimist view have asserted their claim. But Wikipedia does have a list of those who could have done so, including Robert I and IV, who died in 1955.

The Mint probably doesn’t think there’s much of a need, as the use of cash declines.

I haven’t had any coin in my hand in weeks, so can’t comment on whether there are any Charles coins yet.

I hope “Don’t crash and thereby maim or kill them” is at least Rule #2.