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
(7,455 posts)generalbetrayus
(507 posts)GreenWave
(6,660 posts)1776
1812
jimfields33
(15,703 posts)What a gracious way to introduce the new king.
Aristus
(66,294 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
(20,135 posts)But I wouldnt have been surprised if hed gone by George or another name either.
erronis
(15,183 posts)It's got that folksy tone to it. Or King Diana X
melm00se
(4,986 posts)"Charles in Charge"?
twodogsbarking
(9,675 posts)melm00se
(4,986 posts)pandr32
(11,557 posts)Keeping his name will help the transition from Prince to King go smoothly.
FalloutShelter
(11,834 posts)I read there was discussion of choosing George.
I guess Charles wants his name in the books.
calimary
(81,125 posts)Third time's a charm, 'eh?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 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
(32,595 posts)... so I guess they don't count. Charles III is the first Charles of the Windsor line.
Retrograde
(10,130 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
(102,134 posts)No Oliver Cromwells anywhere nor religious controversies this time around...
Warpy
(111,163 posts)but it could be worse, it could be John.
SheltieLover
(57,073 posts)Martin68
(22,768 posts)Queen Camilla?
Aristus
(66,294 posts)Kind of their way of saying "You managed to marry in, but you'll never be royalty."
Martin68
(22,768 posts)How about, Royal concubine?
paleotn
(17,884 posts)hatrack
(59,578 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
(5,719 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
(26,236 posts)Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)I detest Camilla.
GoneOffShore
(17,337 posts)PlutosHeart
(1,262 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
(22,768 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
(27,063 posts)"Dowager". Makes sense. Also makes me think of Maggie Smith, but hey, what can you do?
Martin68
(22,768 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
(8,392 posts). . . building upon his grandfather's legacy, but Charles III it is!
cab67
(2,990 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
(3,145 posts)and a keen understanding of the peril the planet is in.
Lulu KC
(2,561 posts)hatrack
(59,578 posts)paleotn
(17,884 posts)Harker
(13,983 posts)II.
Chainfire
(17,471 posts)Martin68
(22,768 posts)Lulu KC
(2,561 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
(59,578 posts)Charles actually owns a traditional Romanian country house in a village not too far north of Brasov.