advertisement


King Charles III

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.
 
Changing his name would have been seen as an old school affectation, which is ironic given we are discussing regal succession.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
I am very surprised he has chosen to be Charles III.
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 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 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...
 
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'm not really surprised, and suspect change to a regnal name would have caused so much confusion that he was advised against it.
 
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.
Maybe he is hoping Third time lucky?*

*The first did not end well and the second started badly
 
Berty >George VI?
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
And Papists….!
 


advertisement


Back
Top