Posted on 12/25/2005 12:31:52 PM PST by Neville72
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 monarchys history. The Princes 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.
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 Princes 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. 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 Cracrofts 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
a buffon by any other name...
King Elizabeth III.
It has a nice ring to it.
Odd that people still care about the royal succession in a country that has gone in less than one century from world power status to third rate moribund side show in a declining Europe well on the way to becoming Eurabia by the end of this century.
Egypt, Nineveh, Tyre, Babylon, Persia, Rome, Spain, Portugal, Sublime Porte, Imperial Austria-Hungary, Manchu China, England, France, Germany, USSR. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Who's next? Chindia? NAFTA-land exapanded to FTAA-land?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2003/11scalebackftaa.htm
Eurabia 'from Iceland to Iran' ? Or perhaps all three, with Orwell's 1984 vision of three eternally-at-war global messianic totalitarian states time-shifted to 2084. Or none of the above as the world transitions to the William Gibson / Neal Stephenson "Neuromancer Cryptonomicon Snowcrash Diamond Age" world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gibson_%28novelist%29
http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/books/books.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Stephenson
One good stop along the way to sorting through the possibilities is:
The Rise and Decline of the State (Paperback)
by Martin van Creveld
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052165629X/qid=1135546766/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-4753117-6221614?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Book Description
The state, which since the middle of the seventeenth century has been the most important of all modern institutions, is in decline. From Western Europe to Africa, many existing states are either combining into larger communities or falling apart. Many of their functions are likely to be taken over by a variety of organizations that, whatever their precise nature, are not states. In this unique volume Martin van Creveld traces the story of the state from its beginnings to its end. Starting with the simplest political organizations that ever existed, he guides the reader through the origins of the state, its development, its apotheosis during the two World Wars, and its spread from its original home in Western Europe to cover the globe. In doing so, he provides a fascinating history of government from its origins to the present day. This original book will of interest to historians, political scientists and sociologists.
And a German, too. Gad...
Oh wait that would have to be King Elizabeth I.
Didn't we fight a revolution a while back so we wouldn't have to worry about the vagaries of the British royal family?
My ancestor (Maj Gen Harrison) got Charles I, Charles II got the Maj General give us a chance to break the tie. :-)
King Chuck. Chuckie the I.
Why the heck not?
Yep, I should have included that I was agreeing with you. I skipped throught the commments pretty fast.
But Georges have honored themselves since.
Doofus I.
Why not "Numbnuts I"
I like Burger.
It would be tacky to talk about it openly. But it's okay to think about it, and talk among trusted friends. That's all he did, this story consists of two trusted friends breaking confidence and sharing what they heard.
Interestingly enough, I believe that every time Elizabeth has come to America, somebody gives her 13 peppercorns. I think that was part of our rent back then...
Boy George ?
Curious George would be appropriate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.