TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Thought it best to separate this topic out from the death of Queen Elizabeth. My first surprise is that he has chosen to be crowned King Charles III and not King George VI as widely trailered.
Having just experienced the end of the second Elizabethan ages, and of course we have had Victorian, Georgian, and Edwardian ages......are we now entering a Charlsarian age?
Me too. It’s a break with tradition from the Hanovarian period or in fact since William III, more in line with the royal houses of France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. The only two previous British monarchs to take that title were both Stuarts.I am very surprised he has chosen to be Charles III.
I think most people think that Charles has trashed the fantasy by speaking out throughout his life and only occasionally stuck the donkeys tail in the right place. Despite the sterling efforts of Kate particularly, the monarchy is toast. It’s been hanging on by its fingernails just because of herself. Now she is gone and the rest, despite the establishments efforts, will be as night follows day.
I'm not really surprised, and suspect change to a regnal name would have caused so much confusion that he was advised against it.Thought it best to separate this topic out from the death of Queen Elizabeth. My first surprise is that he has chosen to be crowned King Charles III and not King George VI as widely trailered.
I hope your right. I prefer some powerless head of state to some mighty presidentI'm no Royalist but this is the biggest load of tosh I've read in a while! If you think the Monarchy is toast, you're absolutely deluded and like it or not, they'll be around for many generations to come...
Berty >George VI?I'm not really surprised, and suspect change to a regnal name would have caused so much confusion that he was advised against it.
Maybe he is hoping Third time lucky?*Me too. It’s a break with tradition from the Hanovarian period or in fact since William III, more in line with the royal houses of France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. The only two previous British monarchs to take that title were both Stuarts.
True, but we live in a different age. With every aspect of the lives of public figures now subject to almost continuous and microscopic scrutiny I can't help thinking that Charles changing his name at the age of 73 would cause confusion and derision. I'm also pretty sure that the significance of what happened to Charles I & II will be lost on the plebs : it was lost on me until I was reminded about it here. I could be totally wrong of course.Berty >George VI?
The first Charles was unlucky like his grandmother. Both married offspring of the King of France and coincidentally lost their heads in England. Charles II made off before the warty Lord Protector could takes his off and came back to dig up his old adversary and take his off post mortem.True, but we live in a different age. With every aspect of the lives of public figures now subject to almost continuous and microscopic scrutiny I can't help thinking that Charles changing his name at the age of 73 would cause confusion and derision. I'm also pretty sure that the significance of what happened to Charles I & II will be lost on the plebs : it was lost on me until I was reminded about it here. I could be totally wrong of course.
And Papists….!Me too. It’s a break with tradition from the Hanovarian period or in fact since William III, more in line with the royal houses of France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire. The only two previous British monarchs to take that title were both Stuarts.
Well they married Papists but both remained Protestant despite being leaned on by their wives. It was a bit like Brexit- talk against it and you’ll never get into Cabinet.And Papists….!