So, a few weeks ago I asked Where did Charles I get his name from?, and got an interesting answer.
Now I’m moving up four centuries.
Where did the current Prince of Wales get the name from? Why did his mother name her first-born Charles? given the spotty history of Charles I and Charles II as predecessors, why would she decide to name the eventual monarch Charles?
Well, if he took the throne, he’d be called whatever he wanted. His full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. He’s likely to be George VII.
But…how would Elizabeth II know that Charles would be the ‘eventual monarch’? George VI (her father) ascended in 1936 - his brother gave up the throne, remember?
The Prince of Wales was born in 1948 and wasn’t the heir apparent until he was three.
Clarence House has officially denied that report.
When he was born in 1948, his grandfather was 53 and his grandmother was 48. While techically it might have been possible for George VI to father a son, it was unlikely, and the likelihood was that Princess Elizabeth would be queen following her father, with Charles then following her to the throne eventually.
He’s never actually said one way or the other.
She was practically the heiress apparent in 1948. It wasn’t technically impossible that she would be displaced, but there weren’t really any reality-based scenarios where that would happen at that point. Knowing that, she would have been aware that her first-born son would very likely be her eventual heir apparent.
Fair enough, but there’d be like a 20 year gap. Anyway - Charles, Albert, Henry, Edward, & Philip are all pretty common Royal names. A WAG - it’s in the family? 
edit: I need to stop posting on the Dope after 11pm. You are very right.
What other notable British Royals have been named Charles?
I have no idea. But Charles is a pretty popular name in England and has been for a long time.
You know…there are a couple of Henrys that have bad reputations, but we still have a Henry Charles Albert David.
Or what about the Marys? A couple crappy Marys, yet the Queen’s name is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary.
Oh, and George III? Didn’t he, like, lose America? Did that stop anyone from taking the name George or naming their royal children George?
Clearly he was named after Charles Aznavour, whom the Queen has always had a secret hankering for.
How feasible would it be for a modern Royal to buck this trend in offspring nomenclature? I.e., could they realistically name a future or potential heir to the throne anything but George, Charles, Henry, Philip, Albert, David, Elizabeth, Mary, etc., or some combination thereof (depending on gender)?
If the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are big fans of a particular movie star or football player, for example, is there a chance in hell that the Royal Family could be blessed with a little Prince Brad or Princess Keira or Prince Kenneth? Or are they pretty much stuck with the approximately one dozen names per gender approved for Windsor use?
Well, you did mention Charles I and Charles II :).
More recently there is also Charles Edward, one time Duke of Albany, but he was even less a sparkling role model.
WAG, but it is a royal name with a venerable history. No reason not to choose it, really. Any theoretical differences with the Stuart kings ( who are her ancestors as well ) being ancient history by this time.
To be fair, Philip, David and Albert aren’t traditional kingly names in the UK and are more to do with recent family history so there’s no reason why Kate and Wills couldn’t throw in her Dad’s name into the mix, for instance (his name is Michael).
However this is the royals we’re talking about - many families pass family names down the generations and the royals are merely a prime example of this, so naturally there will be the odd Charles, Elizabeth or William thrown in. But when you have four names, it isn’t that big a deal. There is caterogically nothing to stop them calling their first born Brad William Charles Philip. They are just more likely to avoid trendy and trashy than some of us!
There’s apparently a certain degree of concern to name royal kiddies (heirs apparent or presumptive, in particular) with names that will glorify, or at least don’t embarrass, the throne that such kiddie might one day occupy. Names associated with past royal unpleasantness were to be avoided.
I vaguely remember there being much popular discussion and speculation about this before Baby William was born. It became a popular pass-time to work through past royal names, speculating why each would or would not be a suitable name for a royal heir. One specific I recall was that Edward was definitely nomenclatura non grata, the throne having been embarrassed and disgraced by the abdication of Uncle Edward.
She is named for Mama, Great Grandmama and Granny.
There was a documentary about the life of Princess Margaret not long after she died. Apparently when Edward officially abdicated, the palace officials swooped in and started giving Elizabeth intensive lessons on history, government, etc. to get her ready to take over the throne. (Thus leaving Margaret feeling very left out and neglected).
So even then, the general belief was that George had finished with the Heir and Spare bit and the presumption, absent any huge surprise late additions, was that Elizabeth would be next.
(Of course, there may be medical issues that simply were not discussed back in those days…)
It would be awesome if he went with King Arthur.
No. He denied having that particular discussion with his friends. He may well still decide to be George VII.
I think it’s odd that he doesn’t have the name Albert. I read somewhere that Queen Victoria wanted all the male heirs to the throne to be given the name Albert, and Charles is the first male heir who doesn’t have it. It is one of Andrew’s names, though.
To be fair, that was Victoria’s particular obsession rather than anyone elses. Albert was only ever a consort after all. If it had been up to her, all museums and monuments built would have been named after him too (the Victoria & Albert Museum, for instance, which she wanted to be the ‘Albert Museum’). For that matter, I ‘think’ she also wanted to make him King Consort, which the government of the day put a stop to.
There is nothing to stop them naming a baby Michael, but I see it more as a middle name. Although Prince Michael is a first cousin of the Queen, I don’t know how much heand his wife are thought of, and naming a baby Prince Michael might look a little too much like honoring him.
Prince William of Gloucester was a favorite cousin, I think, and so naming a baby William wasn’t the same.