FWIW, if you went to England and asked who the King of England was, I suspect you’d get most people saying Charles III. If you then told them that he’s not, he’s the King of the United Kingdom, not England, I doubt a high proportion of people would care about the distinction.
It’s not a myth so much as a disagreement over whether a semantic distinction is important; same as Princess Diana, that is what she was called most of the time (or Princess Di, to fit better on the headlines). It’s reasonable to use the name someone normally goes by IMO, even if it isn’t their official title [1].
Let’s face it, Charlie’s full list of titles and honours is a little hard to take seriously.
Fairly sure Count Binface isn’t actually legally a Count ↩︎
Let us humbly beseech Almighty God to bless with long life, health and honour, and all worldly happiness the Most High, Most Mighty and Most Excellent Monarch, our Sovereign Lord, Charles III, now, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter
Note that the word “King” isnt used at all, so the same pendants who say Charles isnt King of England can claim his isnt King at all!
You must have missed it, then: “Charles III…by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.”
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that he, Charles, was to carry Excalibur.
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
