I know it’s tradition to choose a regal name that was used before, but is there anything from keeping him from choosing “Robert” or “Michael?” From the discussion here, it sounds like the only boundaries are popularity within previously used regal names. . .
I was working with some Brits when Will and Kate got married, and that was a big to-do. Do you think Charles’ coronation will be as big, or bigger, based on his lack of popularity?
Tripler
Heh, I can see UPS delivering a crown in a box to Buckingham Palace, “Please sign here, your Majesty.”
When it comes to the royals, tradition is everything. Also, don’t rock the boat. So while there’s nothing to stop himself wanted to be King Michael in theory, why provoke upset? These are people over whom a nation feels ownership - take ‘naming your first child and disregarding granny’s views’ and multiply by 60 million.
Heck, never mind the coronation, we’ve got the Queen’s funeral to get through first. That’s going to be the biggest funeral anyone has ever seen.
But, yeah, the coronation will be huge. Whatever people feel about Charles (I have no problem with him), this is our monarch we’re talking about. It’s a symbol way more than a person.
Was he even really King Regnant of England, or only King Consort? Because if theoretically he was King Regnant, then the domain would have remained his after Mary’s death. People tend to get confused over the concept of a Queen Regnant being so while having a male consort, but possession of a penis does not necessarily a regnant make. The information I find makes him King only so long as Mary lived by the terms of their marriage contract and didn’t allow him to so much as change a flowerpot from this corner to that other one without permission: that’s a consort.
Good point. And if I recall reading the Wikipedia articles correctly, Charles becomes King on the instant Elizabeth passes away, correct? But the whole coronation thing takes some time to orchestrate. . .
Is there a traditional place monarchs are buried? Or is it by their personal wishes (including family lineage–i.e. “next to Dad”)? Has a monarch ever been cremated?
We Yankees keep it to a schedule. January 20th, every four years or so.
Yep. Apparently kingons (or maybe queons) are the only physical particles which travel instantaneously. In the case of Alfonso XIII of Spain they even traveled instantaneously and spent 6 months waiting to be allowed to land.
Choosing any name is not really a tradition. The norm is that monarchs reign under their actual name. Charles being anything other than Charles would be unusual.
Well, no, not in every case, hence the debate. On their ascension to the throne, they are asked what name they would like. By tradition, they tend to take one of their names (royals have several). But they could choose anything.
Queen Victoria’s first name was actually Alexandrina, Edward VII was Albert, George VI was also Albert.
Of course in this media age, choosing a different name than Charles would be odd, because we’ve known him as Charles for 70 years. I’d be amazed if he changed it now.
He’s Charles Phillip Arthur George, ftr. It seems unlikely he’d pick the name of the father with whom his relations were strained, or that of a mythical ruler (would he really be King Arthur II?), or that of so many ancestors he’d have to live up to.
There’s no such thing as a King Consort, at least in English usage. The non-ruling spouse of a Queen Regnant is titled a Prince Consort. (Since historically kings are presumed to outrank queens, that title would not be appropriate for the non-ruling spouse of a Queen Regnant.) However, only Queen Victoria’s husband Albert was officially titled as such. Liz’s husband is officially a Prince of the United Kingdom. The fact that Philip received the title King ipso facto indicates he was co-regnant with his wife.
The co-regency of Mary I and Philip was an unprecedented and so far unique situation (as far as the British/English crown goes).* Mary was the first undisputed Queen Regnant of England. Philip received the title of king by jure uxoris:
So while there were some limitations on Philip’s powers, there is no question he was titled King of England during his marriage, and was recognized as co-ruler with Mary rather than a mere consort, like Albert or Phil the Greek.
This said, as mentioned above Philip, like Queen Jane, is rarely included in lists of English monarchs, probably out of embarrassment that he later became England’s worst enemy in trying to oust his former sister-in-law Elizabeth I. While it is arguable whether any future monarch by that name would be recognized as Philip II or just Philip, the question is largely moot since it’s highly unlikely anyone would take the name.
*Of the other Queen Regnants, Elizabeth I was unmarried and Mary II was co-regnant with William III. However, William was also an heir to the throne in his own right, being a grandson of Charles I, and remained King after Mary’s death. Anne’s husband George was a Prince of Denmark and Norway but only a Duke of Cumberland in England.
Oh, but I’d LOVE a King Arthur, and we so nearly had one in Henry VIII’s older brother.
But even if he did choose Arthur (unlikely, granted), he’d still be Arthur I - not just because Arthur is a mythical character, but because we only count numbers from William The Conqueror. For whatever random reason.
Right. There were four Anglo-Saxon Kings of England named Edward not included in the numbering sequence. Kings of the same name before William I are generally distinguished by epithets rather than numbers (such as Edwards the Elder, the Martyr, the Peaceful, and the Confessor).
George III was recognized as being ill, not an outright enemy of England like Philip. And George VI had political reasons to choose that name to emphasize continuity with his respected father, George V, after the abdication of his brother.
I wouldn’t say that possible negative associations with the previous Kings Charles would rule out Charles taking that name, nor that the positive associations with George V and VI would cause him to take that one. But Philip is particularly unlikely.
Actually, that is a choice of the monarch. Numbering was ruled a royal prerogative after John McCormick sued the Crown claiming Elizabeth was NOT Elizabeth II in Scotland since Elizabeth I was only the Queen of England.
George VI is a good example of a regnal name being selected for political reasons. Charles is not very popular. Aside from any links of the name to Philip of Spain, Charles’s father Prince Philip is not particularly popular either. So there would be no political or PR benefit for Charles to choose that name.
Thinking outside the box – is there any reason Prince Charles couldn’t decide to use the name Elizabeth? I mean, talk about a well respected family name…
Yeah, yeah, it’s a girl’s name. How many names have switched sex? Beverley, Dana, Avery, Cassidy, Kim, Leigh,…
And if he did, would he be King Elizabeth the First, or King Elizabeth the Third?
And if the incumbent POTUS pops his clogs, doesn’t the VP instantly become Prez?