Britain's new monarch to be known as King Charles III
Source: Reuters
LONDON, Sept 8 (Reuters) - Clarence House confirmed on Thursday that Britain's new monarch will be known as King Charles III, following the death of Queen Elizabeth, PA Media reported on Thursday.
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-new-monarch-be-known-king-charles-iii-2022-09-08/
durablend
(7,465 posts)generalbetrayus
(507 posts)GreenWave
(6,773 posts)1776
1812
jimfields33
(16,008 posts)What a gracious way to introduce the new king.
Aristus
(66,474 posts)I thought they would avoid the regnal name Charles, as Charles I & Charles II were not the most beloved monarchs in England's history.
I guess the former PoW is too old to change his spots, let alone his name.
NYC Liberal
(20,137 posts)But I wouldnt have been surprised if hed gone by George or another name either.
erronis
(15,377 posts)It's got that folksy tone to it. Or King Diana X
melm00se
(4,996 posts)"Charles in Charge"?
twodogsbarking
(9,842 posts)melm00se
(4,996 posts)pandr32
(11,630 posts)Keeping his name will help the transition from Prince to King go smoothly.
FalloutShelter
(11,886 posts)I read there was discussion of choosing George.
I guess Charles wants his name in the books.
calimary
(81,527 posts)Third time's a charm, 'eh?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,388 posts)Many illegitimate children before and after he got married, though none with his wife, but that was accepted (the eldest, the Duke of Monmouth, tried to overthrow James II after the latter succeeded Charles II, his elder brother).
FakeNoose
(32,804 posts)... so I guess they don't count. Charles III is the first Charles of the Windsor line.
Retrograde
(10,163 posts)Richard, Edward, and Henry, as Richard II, Edward II and Henry VI were all deposed and murdered (or "died under mysterious circumstances after being removed from the throne" . William's out too, as William II was killed in a hunting accident (was he with a Dick Cheney ancestor?) So is James, since James II was deposed and thrown out of the country. That leaves George*, and the Georges were mostly dull, aside from George III who went mad. Doesn't leave much left to choose from.
Charles II, BTW, once he was asked back to England, wasn't that unpopular: he at least learned enough in exile to avoid his father's mistakes.
*there was a King Stephen in the 1100s, but the since his reign was known as The Anarchy his name's best avoided as well.
hlthe2b
(102,413 posts)No Oliver Cromwells anywhere nor religious controversies this time around...
Warpy
(111,367 posts)but it could be worse, it could be John.
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)Martin68
(22,902 posts)Queen Camilla?
Aristus
(66,474 posts)Kind of their way of saying "You managed to marry in, but you'll never be royalty."
Martin68
(22,902 posts)How about, Royal concubine?
paleotn
(17,989 posts)hatrack
(59,593 posts)Like Sophie, wife of Franz Ferdinand. She was considered of 'lowly' birth, so could never have become empress even if the two of them hadn't gone to Sarajevo.
OnlinePoker
(5,727 posts)Originally, it was going to be Princess Consort when Charles acceded to the throne, but in June, Queen Elizabeth said she would prefer Queen Consort, so I expect that will be it.
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/why-camilla-won-t-called-213356112.html
On edit: I don't know why this was in Yahoo Sports.
cstanleytech
(26,332 posts)Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)I detest Camilla.
GoneOffShore
(17,342 posts)PlutosHeart
(1,294 posts)they are just people with flaws like everyone. Diana had hers as well. Charles. All of them.
I wish him well though. Imagine it is a difficult day for their family.
Martin68
(22,902 posts)deal of love lost among them. Too busy following the rules, fulfilling the duties, and sucking it up. As with the Japanese Imperial Family, theirs is an inhuman institution dedicated to the continuity of power and status. An incredibly artificial human invention, designed to instill awe in the commoners, much like the edifices of the Egyptian Pharaohs.
Collimator
(1,639 posts). . . would be a Queen Consort. Queens can be regnal, i.e, the actual monarch, the consort/spouse of the monarch or the mother of the monarch.
Kings reign or they're dead.
What was unusual about Camilla was that she never became the Princess of Wales, because Diana's fans would not have had that. Those were the people that the RF had in mind when they proposed Camilla being called the "Princess Consort" when Charles became king, because people had their hearts set on Diana as the eventual Queen. The word "consort" added to a Queen married to the British king would be sort of redundant for either Diana or Camilla.
So, either people will accept Camilla as Queen, or not. The real stickiness might come when Charles dies and William succeeds. Will people tolerate Camilla being known as "The Queen Mother" when Diana was William's actual mother?
Coventina
(27,200 posts)"Dowager". Makes sense. Also makes me think of Maggie Smith, but hey, what can you do?
Martin68
(22,902 posts)Queen Consort, but Charles can change that later. I imagine they'll need to conduct some surveys and gather a few focus groups to test the reaction to be expected among the populace before doing that
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . building upon his grandfather's legacy, but Charles III it is!
cab67
(3,010 posts)The notion that Albert was too "Germanic," when the first King George couldn't even speak English and was part of a line known as the House of Hanover, then the House of Saxe-Coburg, until the UK went to war with Germany, always struck me as silly.
The Mouth
(3,165 posts)and a keen understanding of the peril the planet is in.
Lulu KC
(2,574 posts)hatrack
(59,593 posts)paleotn
(17,989 posts)Harker
(14,051 posts)II.
Chainfire
(17,659 posts)Martin68
(22,902 posts)Lulu KC
(2,574 posts)I want to just call him Chuck! I've never thought of him that way until now, but it's almost like he's a brother who should have a nickname.
hatrack
(59,593 posts)Charles actually owns a traditional Romanian country house in a village not too far north of Brasov.