Apparently this is because the first King Charles as beheaded. Is this true or is he delluded?
2007-02-11 06:03:27 · 39 answers · asked by Ally 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
I don't think anyone really cares - all it proves, if true, is that these Royals live a completely detached life from the rest of the planet!
Personally I would have them selling hot dogs outside Buck Palace instead of reaping the benefits of my taxes!
2007-02-11 06:07:27 · answer #1 · answered by jamand 7 · 4⤊ 7⤋
Prince Charles is considering taking the name George when (or rather if) he becomes king.This is actually nothing unusual: four out of the six recent monarchs have taken a name other than their first when they take the crown. George VI (the present queen's father) had the first name Albert (and was called Bertie within the family), while Edward VIII (who abdicated after a very short time to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson) was known as David, the last of his seven forenames, until he took the throne.
The problem with Prince Charles becoming King Charles III is a kind of superstition that the name is unlucky, given that the name has been associated with unpleasant periods of the monarchy's history. Charles I (1625-49) was an absolutist Catholic who ended up getting his head chopped off, and Charles II (1660-85) had three disasters (the plague, the fire of London, and a war with Holland) happen on his watch. And Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Scottish Catholic (Jacobite) pretender to the throne in the 18th century, is known as Charles III among his fans in Scotland.
2007-02-11 06:20:34 · answer #2 · answered by M M 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The first king Charles, was beheaded,his son Charles the second reigned after him, therefore the Prince of Wales should become Charles the third, I have read a magazine article that states that his two sons were secretly christened as catholics on their mother's insistence,that will make an interesting situation when William ascends the throne!
2007-02-14 07:52:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
King Charles I was beheaded in the Civil War about 300 years ago, yes. But that should mean present-day Charles becomes Charles III.
However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he shouldn't become king at all- he married a divorcee and it's against the law for him to be king unless he gets rid of Camilla...
2007-02-13 04:56:23 · answer #4 · answered by Amy R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has been said in the media on a number of occasions that The Prince of Wales wishes to use another regnal name once he accedes the throne. We can all speculate on wheter this is likely to be true or not, but the fact is that HRH himself has never commented on this matter. So we cannot answer this question for sure.
Personally I think that even if this would be Charles's inner personal wish, it won't happen because we're now living in different times and the monarchy is changing. In the old days it might've been an easy thing for a monarch to do, but in our day and age it would only send a confusing and unmodern signal to the people.
2007-02-11 09:40:18 · answer #5 · answered by ChocolaterieGirl 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Quite true. Not only was Charles the 1st beheaded, Charles the 2nd was most famous for his string of mistresses (Nell Gwynne being the most famous), so not surprisingly, Charles has considered choosing an alternate name, such is his right.
His grandfather, George VI was Albert, so this is not without precedant. Edward VII was also named Albert and Victoria's first name was Alexandrina. If Charles was to choose another name to be crowned by, it would probably be George, which would make him George VII.
George the 3rd of course liked talking to trees and was certifiable, so maybe even this name won't make the grade! What's wrong with "King Albert" anyway?? Albert's a good name!
2007-02-11 06:16:43 · answer #6 · answered by Mental Mickey 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
It has been mentioned that Prince Charles is considering using his fourth given (Christian) name of George and become King George VII . Charles' full name is Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor. It's not uncommon for Kings to use a name other than their first names upon ascending to the throne. For instance, Edward VII and George VI both had the first name Albert (after Victioria's husband, Edward VII's father) and Edward VIII's first name was David. It is true that Charles I was executed for treason, and Charles II's reign, like his father's (Charles I) was beseiged with problems with the British Parliament, so I wouldn't blame the current Prince Charles for maybe wanting to use one of his other names. King George VI was Charles' grandfather, so that may factor into the decision as well.
2007-02-11 08:02:04 · answer #7 · answered by rempelhg 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Charles I was beheaded and Charles II is best remembered for his mistresses and bastards; neither are great precedents. Charles's grandfather was a George (though his real name was Albert) so he must feel a closer connection to that name than 'King Charles'. Like a pope, a king can call himself something different from his own name.
2007-02-11 10:29:05 · answer #8 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was reported some time ago that Prince Charles has stated that when he becomes King, he may very well change his name, as the previous King Charles' did not fare very well and he thinks that it could be something like a "jinx" to be King Charles III
More info here...
http://theinternetforum.co.uk/rf/charles11.html
2007-02-11 10:20:49 · answer #9 · answered by sarch_uk 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I haven't read anything about this but I don't see why he can't be Charleslll - it would make a change from all the Georges.
Although Charles l was executed, Charles ll was a very popular king and died safely in his bed.
2007-02-12 22:19:48 · answer #10 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some great answers here....I guess it is true!
I don't know if William wants to be King...but I don't think Charles should ascede to the throne.
He is already far too mucked up by scandal. I pray that HRH Queen Elizabeth will speak to this matter before to much longer,she is the only one with the wisdom and earthly experience to choose. If she states that he will be then he should be. I just think that he shouldn't.
2007-02-12 18:30:38 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋