# Why don't Brits want King Charles III (or will it be King George VII?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326 "2010-11-29T21:25:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/101 "2010-12-02T17:20:47Z")
> [@villa](#): > > The Royal Family wasn’t sitting there eking food out like other people. Cite? I recall reading in a biography of the Queen Mother that they were. Having put much of the royal estates over to farming probably helped, but those estates had to feed all the estate workers and their families too. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/102 "2010-12-02T17:24:53Z")
I’d be okay with Canada severing all official and ceremonial connections with the British Monarchy upon the death of QE2. Not because I have any particular animus about Charles, but because it’s about damn time, already, and I want to see the Republic of Canada in my lifetime. In fact, I think I’ll drop a line to my M.P. about this… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/103 "2010-12-02T17:25:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But I’m not clear on why she is “Duke” and not “Duchess.” I imagine it’s because the title is simply an Anglicization of the Old French _duc_, which has no feminine form, rather than the word duke as we know it in English (which derives directly from the Latin _dux_). I can’t back that up though. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/104 "2010-12-02T17:31:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I imagine it’s because the title is simply an Anglicization of the Old French _duc_, which has no feminine form Duchesse. And, yes, as with Normandy, the queen is duke, not duchess, of Lancaster. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/105 "2010-12-02T17:40:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I imagine it’s because the title is simply an Anglicization of the Old French _duc_, which has no feminine form, rather than the word duke as we know it in English (which derives directly from the Latin _dux_). > > I can’t back that up though. Pick one; either it comes directly from French or directly from Latin, it cant do both. (Sounds like one of those ages long debates with Brits bent on denial of any French import in English language, “But it originally came from Latin!!!”). ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/106 "2010-12-02T17:46:29Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Cite? I recall reading in a biography of the Queen Mother that they were. Having put much of the royal estates over to farming probably helped, but those estates had to feed all the estate workers and their families too. Game wasn’t rationed, for a start. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/107 "2010-12-02T18:33:38Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > (Sounds like one of those ages long debates with Brits bent on denial of any French import in English language, “But it originally came from Latin!!!”). Yeah, debates with imaginary Brits tend to drag on. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/108 "2010-12-02T18:44:54Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Yeah, debates with imaginary Brits tend to drag on. Brits in drags? Now, that would be something new. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/109 "2010-12-02T19:12:42Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Game wasn’t rationed, for a start. So? You can’t survive on venison alone. Never mind the difficulty of transporting it when petrol is rationed. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/110 "2010-12-02T19:14:41Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > So? You can’t survive on venison alone. Never mind the difficulty of transporting it when petrol is rationed. Game wasn’t rationed, nor was fish, nor were vegetables. Rationing affected urban dwellers more than country people (or those with fucking huge estates), and the poor more than the rich (because there were many off ration items). Given that, I think it significantly likely the Windsors were less affected by rationing that the Smiths from Toxteth, don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/111 "2010-12-03T22:09:17Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I see some value in a ceremonial head of state separated from the regular partisan political process. Parliamentary democracies without monarchs often have a ceremonial President who doesn’t actually do much governing, while the Prime Minister or Chancellor who leads the majority party or coalition in Parliament is the real leader. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/112 "2010-12-04T00:42:33Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/113 "2010-12-04T02:08:32Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Pick one; either it comes directly from French or directly from Latin, it cant do both. > (Sounds like one of those ages long debates with Brits bent on denial of any French import in English language, “But it originally came from Latin!!!”). The English word duke comes from the Latin _dux_. The title of duke _as used in the Channel Islands_ came from the Old French _duc_. Think of them as cognates in the same language. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/114 "2010-12-04T02:25:17Z")
> [@villa](#): > > That problem arises largely from the absence of an effective Bill of Rights, the reason for which can be largely traced back to the existence of a monarchy. Yes, the House of Lords has done some good things recently, but over its history it has been a bastion of power for the privileged elite and has acted as such. Were there no monarchy, were there an effective Bill of Rights, we could have an elected Upper Chamber that served the same role. Canada has a highly effective and powerful Charter of Rights as part of its constitution, despite being a monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/115 "2010-12-04T04:53:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The English word duke comes from the Latin _dux_. The title of duke _as used in the Channel Islands_ came from the Old French _duc_. Think of them as cognates in the same language. Ah, thanks for the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/116 "2010-12-04T14:00:45Z")
To go back to the O.P.,no there isn’t a large amount of opposition to Charlie becoming king. Diana who wasn’t IRL a very nice person, was an expert at self promotion and very effective at spreading poison about the R.F. that had absaloutly no basis in fact. Why did she do it? Some people are just born that way. She did however manage to convince those of the gullible, easily led nature, who pay more credence to ham acting and a pretty face, then those who are not naturally of a disembling nature. Those whom she convinced tended to be of an almost fanatical nature, and make up for their small numbers and lack of credibility by sheer noisyness and down right lying. Charlie ISN’T sexy in any way, let alone in the way his sons are, and he’s not a looker. But those are not the qualifications for the job that it is his duty to take on when Liz cashes in her chips. He cares very deeply about the environment and actually does things about it instead of just talikng about it. He also ares very deeply about young people and once again actually takes practical steps to help them instead of just participating in talking shops about them as so many others who profess to care, do. He’s an ex serving Royal Naval officer, has taken the British Armys military parachuting course, which he was not even expected to take, let alone was pressured into taking and which is considered to be pretty tough. (He even did an unauthorised water jump which Liz was apparently livid about) He has scuba dived under the Arctic ice cap and survived a particulary grim time at Gordonstoun public school as a kid, where he was bullied relentlessly and no action taken because it would look like favouritism if anyone intervened. So despite appearances he is no wimp. Before anyone asks, I am not connected to him in any way either socially or otherwise though in the past I have been, as it were, co located with him while working. I get sick of the tired sniping at an easy target who is by the conventions of his role unable to answer his critics back. Charlie will make a good king and Camilla a good queen, no matter what bitchy remarks are made about them. They’ve both got broad shoulders and good luck to them. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/117 "2010-12-04T16:29:34Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Canada has a highly effective and powerful Charter of Rights as part of its constitution, despite being a monarchy. I know next to nothing about the Canadian constitutional set up - to whom does the military swear an oath of allegiance? Is the Queen sovereign or just head of state? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/118 "2010-12-04T20:48:01Z")
Her Majesty is the sovereign of Canada, as set out in the [Constitution Act, 1867](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/Const_index.html). She has much the same prerogative powers as in the United Kingdom, as modified by our constitutional structure and subsequent statutory provisions. > [@](#): > > \*\*Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen > > 9.\*\* The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the **Queen**. > > **Command of Armed Forces to continue to be vested in the Queen** > > **15.** The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the \*\*Queen. > > Constitution of Parliament of Canada > > 17.\*\* There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the **Queen** , an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons. > > \*\*Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada > > 1. It shall be lawful for the Queen\*\*, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces…[excessive verbiage omitted] Similar provisions apply to each of the ten provinces, making the Queen the head of the provincial executive and a component of each provincial Legislature. I don’t know about the members of the Armed Forces and their oaths ( **RickJay** or **Bryan Eckers** may be able to comment on that), but all members of the Senate, the House of Commons, and the provincial Legislatures are required to swear allegiance to Her Majesty as a condition of taking their seats: [QUOTE=Constititution Act, 1867] \*\*[Oath of Allegiance, etc.](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/5.html#codese:128) 128.\*\* Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act; and every Member of the Senate of Canada and every Member of the Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his Seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General, or some Person authorized by him, the Declaration of Qualification contained in the same Schedule. [Fifth Schedule](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/8.html) **Oath of Allegiance** I _A.B._ do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. _Note.—The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto._ [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/119 "2010-12-04T23:20:11Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > I heard (on the Dope?) he was likely to become George VII, if only because Charleses I and II were both less than popular. Getting back to the subsidiary question in the thread title, there was a rumour five years ago that the Prince was considering adopting George VII as his regnal name: [Call me George, suggests Charles](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article782407.ece): > [@](#): > > THE Prince of Wales has discussed rejecting the title Charles III when he becomes King to avoid unhappy associations with some of the bloodiest periods in the monarchy’s history. > The Prince’s favourite alternative name is George VII, in honour of his grandfather — one of the best-loved monarchs of the past century. > > The Times has spoken to two trusted friends of the Prince, who both said that the change to George has been considered seriously. One said: “There have been many conversations with the Prince about this. It is an assumption among us all that it will happen. > > “The name Charles is tinged with so much sadness.” > > The other source said: “They [the Royal Family] will decide at the time, but he has talked about George.” However, that news item was followed just a few days later by a “pained denial” from the Prince that he had been been planning to take that name: [Charles denies planning to reign as King George](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/27/monarchy.michaelwhite): > [@](#): > > Clarence House yesterday issued a pained denial of claims that the Prince of Wales has held private discussions with “trusted friends” about the possibility of reigning as George VII rather than risk the negative connotations attached to the name King Charles. > … > Officially the Prince’s office said yesterday: “No decision has been made and it will be made at the time.” > > This is a formula which tactfully acknowledges that the Queen is in excellent health at 80 and that the Queen Mother only recently died at 101. So, trial balloon that was a dud? inaccurate gossip by royal chums? indiscreet gossip by royal chums (which is not necessarily the same thing as inaccurate…)? you decide. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/120 "2010-12-05T00:49:33Z")
When I was in the Canadian Reserves from 1989 to 1992, my oath was sworn to Lizzie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326.md?page=7)