King Charles III? No, make that King George VII.

Prince Charles has said that when (or, even, IF) he became King, he doesn't want to be King Charles III to avoid unhappy associations with some of the bloodiest periods in the monarchy’s history. Charles I, the ONLY monarch to ever be executed, was beheaded during the English Civil War in 1649. England then became a Republic under the leadership of Cromwell, until the Monarchy was restored in 1660, when Charles II became King. He became known as the Merry Monarch because he had a string of mistresses, including the orange-seller Nell Gwyn.

Charles said he may become King George VII.

The Times December 24, 2005

Call me George, suggests Charles
By Andrew Pierce

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 (George VI) — 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.”

The name Charles is regarded as jinxed in some royal circles. Charles I was the only monarch to be executed. His beheading in 1649, after the English Civil War, brought about the short-lived republic under Oliver Cromwell.

Charles II, the son of Charles I, returned to the throne at the Restoration in 1660, after spending 18 years in exile overseas, but was mocked as the Merry Monarch because he had a string of mistresses, including the orange-seller Nell Gwyn.

There is sensitivity in royal circles about Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender, who was known as Charles III by his supporters. Despite his defeat at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, he is still seen as a Scottish romantic figure.

The Prince of Wales, who was christened Charles Philip Arthur George, is a passionate supporter of the Union and spends most of his holidays in Scotland.

A Clarence House spokesman said that there had been long-term thinking about the Coronation, but that nothing had been discussed officially about changing the Prince’s title. He added: “One of the questions that we have asked is what he will be known as. The decision will be taken at the time.”

When he ascends the throne the new King will convene an Accession Council — a meeting of the full Privy Council.

It is the only time that the full Privy Council, which includes ministers and senior bishops, meets. It will then be decreed by the council what title the new King will take.

Were the Prince to change his formal, or regnal, title he would be following a tradition begun by Queen Victoria in 1837, who was born Alexandrina (so should have been Queen Alexandrina). Four of the past six monarchs have changed their name, including George VI, the father of the Queen, who was christened Prince Albert.

Prince Charles was only 4 when his grandfather died but he was very close to his grandmother, the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

The issue of changing the regnal title has been raised at Clarence House but the name is not yet part of any formal planning for the sucession.

One senior Royal official said that there had been an assumption in informal talks about the accession that the Prince would keep the name Charles.

Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, a genealogist from Cracroft’s Peerage, said: “There has been a tradition over the last century for the regnal title to be different to the christian name. The change would make sense.

“Monarchs called Charles have not had much luck. One was beheaded, one was in exile, and one was a pretender to the throne.

“While the Prince of Wales is known throughout the world as Charles, there is enormous goodwill to the name George. George VI was an outstanding and popular King who took over in the immediate aftermath of the abdication crisis and rallied his people during the war. King George and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother were wonderful. I think George VII and Queen Camilla sound wonderful, too.”

When the marriage was announced of the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles, Clarence House said that she would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after the marriage and that it was “intended” that she would be known as Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales succeeds his mother to the throne.

If, however, public opinion were amenable, she could yet become Queen Camilla. Significantly, there was no such announcement about the title by which her husband would be known.
Queen Eliz is the last monarch I wish to see on our coins.
You don't want to become a Republic. A Republic is nowhere near as democratic as a Constitutional Monarchy.
The Times December 24, 2005

Change of name will follow a long royal tradition
By Patrick Foster and Andrew Pierce
Charles’s decision is not an original one

IF THE Prince of Wales were to adopt the title of George VII he would be the fourth of the past six monarchs to rule under a name by which he was not commonly known.
The practice is regarded by royal genealogists as relatively modern. The monarch can choose to change title without the consent of Parliament or the prime minister.

The tradition began with Queen Victoria. Her mother, Victoria, the Duchess of Kent, wanted her also to be called Victoria. But the Prince Regent, out of deference to his cousin, Tsar Alexander I of Russia, insisted that she be named Alexandrina Victoria. When William IV died in 1837 the new young Queen opted to be known by the name that her mother had wished for her. She was the first Queen Victoria and her 64-year reign makes her the longest-serving monarch. Her eldest son, who was christened Albert Edward, followed his mother in choosing to reign under his second forename. Queen Victoria had always intended her son, known as Bertie, to become King Albert Edward I. But on his succession he decreed that he would be crowned Edward VII because he wanted his father to be the only Albert to be remembered in history.

Edward VII, when he was Prince of Wales, was known as the Playboy Prince. For 12 years he had an affair with Alice Keppel — the great-grandmother of Camilla Parker Bowles — who was at his bedside when he died in 1910. When Camilla, then 25, met Prince Charles for the first time, she is reputed to have said: “Our ancestors were lovers. So how about it?” He was succeeded by his second son, George V, who reigned under his given name. Edward’s first son, Prince Albert Victor, had died in 1892 putting George Frederick Ernest Albert directly in line to the throne. His wife, Princess May of Teck, had been christened Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes. She was known as Queen Mary.

The next monarch to rule under a title by which he was not commonly known was Edward VIII. Although baptised Edward, the King was known to friends and family as David, the last of his seven forenames. Edward’s reign lasted only 325 days because of his refusal to give up Wallis Simpson, his American lover, who had been twice divorced. He was succeeded by his younger brother, Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George, the Duke of York. He had never expected to be King and chose to rule under his fourth christening name, George. In private Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother referred to the King as “my beloved Bertie”.

The King’s eldest daughter was christened Elizabeth Alexandra Mary after her mother. Before marriage the Queen Mother was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons. In February 1952 the Princess became Elizabeth II. Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, from Cracroft’s Peerage, said that the decision to change regnal titles was a matter for the new monarch and no one else. “They of course consult their ministers and the prime minister of the day. But it is a personal decision,” he said. “They would by convention choose one of their own forenames.

“I think Prince Charles would be much more likely to go for George rather than his other two forenames. He would be the first King Arthur and be the first King Philip. I think George VII sounds better. It is a popular name within the Royal Family and would be a tribute to the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, whose husband also chose the same regnal title.”

Roots in the past


The name of England’s patron saint is originally derived from the Greek name Georgios, meaning “farmer” or, more literally, “tiller of the earth”.

The name was rare until the house of Hanover came to power in 1714, whereupon Georges ruled for 116 unbroken years.


Ultimately derived from the Old German word karl, meaning “man”, with the additional implications of valour and self-governance.

The historic bearer of the name was the Holy Roman Emperor, Charlemagne.

The soldier, the sailor and the farmer

George I

Born 1660, reigned 1714-1727

The first of the Hanoverians. Succeeded to the English throne on the death of Queen Anne. Never learnt English and spent most of his reign in Hanover. The post of Prime Minister was created to cope with his long absences from England and first occupied by Robert Walpole. George arrived in England without his wife, Sophia, who had been imprisoned for adultery, but with two mistresses.

George II

Born 1683, reigned 1727-1760

The last British king to command his armies on the battlefield, defeating the French in 1743 at Dettingen. Loved opera, notably Handel. Allowed his domineering and intelligent wife, Caroline, huge influence over affairs of state.

George III

Born 1738, reigned 1760-1820

The first Hanoverian born in England and speak the language. Best remembered for his madness, now ascribed to porphyria. George III oversaw the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, after his brothers married in secret, which gave the Soveriegn veto power over marriages of most lineal descendents of George II. Known as “Farmer George” because of his interest in agriculture.

George IV

Born 1762, reigned 1820-1830

His marriage to a Catholic in 1785, secret and without his father’s permission, was subsequently declared void. Had many mistresses and such hatred between him and his second wife, Caroline, that she took their daughter Charlotte to Italy in 1796, returning only in a vain attempt to be crowned Queen. George barred her from his coronation.

George V

Born 1865, reigned 1910-1936

Ascending the throne during the 1910 budget crisis, George V also ruled through the First World War, during which he replaced the family name, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, with Windsor. A professional naval officer. Started the tradition of the monarch’s annual Christmas broadcast in 1932.

George VI

Born 1895, reigned 1936-1952

Succeeded when his brother, Edward VIII, abdicated. George VI had a terrible stammer, which compounded his natural shyness.

A well-loved king who ruled through the Second World War, George went as far as practising firing his revolver, saying he would defend Buckingham Palace to the death.
the caracal kid
canada is not a democracy anyway. it may call itself one, but it is not.
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

canada is not a democracy anyway. it may call itself one, but it is not.

It's a regonized democratic form of government. I may not like it but it's still more democratic then many states out there.

I could care less about the monarchy and the people inside of it.

I'm not a Republican who wishes to bring in republican tradtions. I think our monarchist traditions are just fine and nice and apart of what makes us Canadian, but I could care less about "Royality" or "Nobility". If you care to study feudalism in any great detail you will learn that most "nobles" were no more then mordern day biker gangs, and most kings were usurpers no better then a fascist.

As to a constitutional Monarchy being more democratic then a republic. I think that is total opinion and totally depends what republic you are basing this on and what constitutional monarchy. Plus you should remember most constitutional monarchies are moduled at least in some part by republican standerds and modules, such as the UK, Canada, Austriala and a few others. The basic concepts of a republics government are in play in any of these governments be it by Livy's standers, Machiavelli in the Discourses, or by John Locke. even if these funtions no longer funtion as they were supposed to they have actually gotten more out of control then many republics, with one section of government dominating over the others.

Back to my main point.... hmmm I don't really need to defeand my main point, I'm just going to say there's no I'll ever regonize Charly as our King. I will never make any pledge or affirmation to him. I made one to the Queen when I was in the millitary but at least she is somewhat human and respectful.
the caracal kid
you feel about chucky the way i feel about the entire house of windsor.

we do agree on some things.
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

you feel about chucky the way i feel about the entire house of windsor.

we do agree on some things.

naaa, I don't wish him ill and I think our traditions make us who we are, but as for making Chuck the head of the Canadian nation.... or in that matter his representive leaves a very foil taste in my mouth. Anyhow we've agreed on a few things already.

I don't know I wouldn't care for tradition sake if he was considered the king, or monarch of Canada, but not so much the head of state or considering someone to be his rep as head of state. Errrr I can almost picture our money with his face on it.
You don't want to become a Republic. A Republic is nowhere near as democratic as a Constitutional Monarchy.

That's an interesting observation.

It may well be true, but I don't know why
and would like to understand why.

Similar Threads

King George the Turd
by triedit | Jun 18th, 2007