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 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.”
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. 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
“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.”
Yes. That didn’t escape my eyes.
The only thing is, I have read this same thing over a period of time about calling himself George from several sources. Therefore, it is not just from two “trusted” friends. Apparently the whole neighborhood has known about this for a long period of time.
How about:
"The King Formerly Known as Prince"?
'...and I will hold him and pet him and I will name him George!'
His daddy (C I) didn't do too well, though.
But one could safely say that 50% of the past Charles were happy.
Utterly absurd. For resilence, patience, and triumph over adversity one could scarcely find a greater King than Charles II. The prince should be honoured to hold such a name.
Why would they want to repeat that mistake, Clemenza?
I agree completely. This article is far too dismissive of the well-beloved Merry Monarch.
I'm surprised that the dhimmi prince is still relevant in the UK. He is proof enough that monarchies are the worst form of governments.
The 'thrown.' Mind boggling. You would have been an ideal recruit for the lower orders of the Green Ribbon Club, JLS. Have you a Protestant flail somewhere in the holler?
How about King Tampon The First?
Or perhaps the Tampon Pretender?
Thanks for your commonsense input, Ella. Can't you just see some of our fellow Freepers, experts on the Crown from reading Shaftesbury's pamphlets (or their modern equivalent, USA Today) enthusiastically burning an effigy of the Pope at Smithfield?
You would have been an ideal recruit for the lower orders of the Green Ribbon Club, JLS. </i>
______________________
Probably not as I am pretty sympathetic to the British monarchy, if not this particular potential future king. If he could stand of for the traditions of the UK rather than come to the US with his PC suggestions, I could like him.
__________________________
Have you a Protestant flail somewhere in the holler?
_____________________________
Are you suggesting your bias against certain Americans? I think that is against the rules of this site.
Here's a great thread!
Of course, the Georges are generally better thought of in England than they are in These States -- if one likes Kings who don't speak English or who are mad. The Charlies are probably better thought of over here, however, having achieved almost mythic romantic status as a Lost Cause second only to The South Will Rise Again.
He does stand for the traditions of the UK. You need to do a bit of/more reading.
..are you suggesting your bias against certain Americans? I think that is against the rules of this site...
I'm strongly biased against certain Americans. Two Massachusetts senators, for instance.
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.