Friday, November 14, 2008

What's In a Royal Name?

In a post on Prince Charles saying he will be 'Defender of the Faith', Cranmer speculates that Prince Charles, when he becomes King, will be known as King George VII. It's not the first time I have heard that said. How patently ridiculous. He should be King Charles III and that should be the end of it.

I was never quite sure why the Queen's father became George VI when his real first name was Albert and was known to everyone as Bertie.

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

He has already stated publicly that this will be the name he takes.

Anonymous said...

Why is it ridiculous? George is one of his names, after all. It would be a tribute to his grandfather, who led us through the war.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

There is a perfectly good precedent for this, which is enshrined in music lore:

Her name was McGill, and
She called herself "Lil"
but everyone knew her as
"Nancy".

Anonymous said...

It's superstition relating to the enormous political chaos that reigned under the previous two Kings named Charles.

One would have thought the Queen would have considered this when naming her son... at any rate, I think he's a bit too well known as Charles at this point to call himself anything else!

Anonymous said...

Like Law "N" Order Ian I would give the Royals a wide berth, people cannot stand them and the sooner they go and live abroad the better and I don't want to hear the "tourism" arguement trotted out.
If you cost in their protection they cost us billions and that cheeky xxxxxx Margaret didn't even pay any death duties
Freedom to Prosper

Null said...

Iain, this is very odd. I thought is was only fantasists who changed their names? Perhaps there is an untold story here...

Anonymous said...

Read before you post, Iain. The story's not about him 'saying he will be Defender of THE Faith.' It's about His Royal Dimness saying he'll be 'Defender of Faith.' (In which case, he can't be king; no bad thing.) Rodney, er, King had to get beaten up before 'Why can't we all just get along?' became his catchphrase. Hopefully HRH can be retrospectively assaulted for being a twerp.

Malcolm Redfellow said...

Because we've already had a James III & VIII (1701-1766), Charles III (1766-1788), and Henry IX and I (1788-1807).

OK: they were pretenders (who isn't?). The intriguing fact is that, after the French Revolution, Henry, the Cardinal Duke of York, Bishop of Ostia and Valleti, was destitute. He then received £4,000 a year as a pension from George III. By all accounts, compared to his more famed brother, "Bonnie Prince Charlie", who degenerated into a drunk, rake and wife-beater, Henry Benedict Stuart was a decent and prudent guy.

If anyone can locate a copy of Sir Charles Petrie on "The Later Stuarts", I recall it speculates at some length on the (alternative universe) possibility of a Stuart restoration in colonial America.

Anonymous said...

I agree, King Charles III it should be. Having watched the Prince Charles programme on the BBC last night one thing I did notice is that Prince Charles is a better public speaker than most politicians.

Anonymous said...

Charles made it clear some years ago he would become George VII on ascending the throne - as Charles Philip Arthur George, he is entitled to use any of his forenames as his reigning title. It wasn't only George VI who was known by a different name before ascending the throne; his brother Edward VIII was known as David. And Edward VII was also known as Bertie.

I think retaining an individual identity separate from "The Job" might have something to do with it.

Ben said...

Long live the Queen.

Paul Burgin said...

I have heard about this, and I have also heard that it is to do with what tom fd has alluded to, that the two previous Charles's are Kings he does not want to be compared with.
Personally I think a name is a name, but am not too bothered, and if, as I have heard, it is a mark of respect to his grandfather, King George VI, then fair enough.

Paul Linford said...

Edward VII was also known as "Bertie" and was christened Albert Edward but Queen Victoria had made it clear she didn't want her son to take her beloved consort's name when he became King, believing him to be unworthy of it.

Like Paul Burgin I too believe Charles's decision arises from a wish to pay an affectionate tribute to his grandfather, whom he knew as "Grandpa England" in the four years they shared on earth.

Man in a Shed said...

Why should the first born be king. Perhaps the privy council could chose a suitable member of the royal family.

strapworld said...

Iain, when my children were young they loved a programme called Mr.Benn.

Mr Benn would enter a costume store and put on a uniform or dress, walk through a door and for that episode become that person!

I am afraid we have Mr Benn's family as the Royal Family. Look at the Cenotaph Ceremony.

What uniform shall we wear? What shall we be today? It really has come to that!

So George V11 sounds about right! BUT lets face it he worries that Charles might attract the axe!

Another point he does have about ten Christian names - Sorry, ten all faith names.

Anonymous said...

Lot of traitors around tonight

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Strapworld has also noticed how Royals dress up in multifarious costumes. "Today, Matthew, I am going to be an Admiral!"

Anonymous said...

Tom fd: -

"It's superstition relating to the enormous political chaos that reigned under the previous two Kings named Charles"

Do a quick check on the second one please! While Charles I lost his head for reasons which many people still think reasonable, his son Charles II was on the throne for 25reasonably peaceful years, apart from the depredations of those pesky Dutch. While there were plots and politics going on there was no second civil war and some of the royal mistresses are remembered to this day! The second Stuart to cause chaos was his brother James II who was booted out, without much bloodshed, for reasons which seemed excellent then but which in a godless age have lost some of their significance.

Anonymous said...

Whole load of bollocks more like it.

The constitutional position of the monarch of the UK includes the descrption "Defender of the faith". If Charles cannot accept that, then he cannot ascend to the throne and take the crown in succession to his mother.

Move over Charlie!

Anonymous said...

Her Majesty, of course, when confronted at Treetops with the tragic news of her father's death, was asked what name she would take, and replied, "My own, of course!"

Anonymous said...

since we are on royal names does anyone know if Henry VII's eldest son and heir intended to be known as King Arthur? It was of course his younger bro who became Henry VIII and was made Defender of the Faith by the Pope. He certainly became defender of 'a' faith if not the one intended by His Holiness Pope Leo VII (?)

It's all so barmy it's hardly worth losing your head over.

Anonymous said...

good work wrinkled weasel but shouldn't you be hibernating by now?

Anonymous said...

I noticed all the medals he was wearing, he must have been very brave when he was in the navy.

defender of faith confuses me. If he claims to believe one particular faith he must think that all the other faiths are bunkum so why would he want to defend them?

Anonymous said...

Or why the Queen's surname is Windsor and Prince Phillip's Battenburg and the Harry has "Wales" on his uniform.

C'mon, they make this stuff up as they go along.

Just so long as they don't call him Chas.

Richard Edwards said...

Charles is hardly a fortunate name for a monarch.

Scary Biscuits said...

All names are arbitary. A personal Christian name is different from an official name, which may be chosen to deliberately colour a reign. Kings and other princes have been doing this since the dawn of time. Get over it, republicans.

On a second note, I agree with the above that being "Defender of [any] faith" is unacceptable. (a) It is unconsititutional and undermines Charles' right the the throne. (b) It offends me as a Christian. (c) It also offends most Muslims that a kaffa would presume to speak for them. (d) The only people happy about "Defender of Faith" are likely to be almost all multiculturalists and republicans. Whilst this, alas, is the majority of the country these day it is seems worryingly like building his house on sand.

Anonymous said...

He might also chose to administer the royal estates himself, taking them back from Parliament.

This would effectively bankrupt the government and fix the moaning about the civil list at the same time.

He would also run them better - he is an excellent businessman.

Anonymous said...

Dave h - Prince Harry's correct title is "HRH Prince Henry of Wales" - which is why he has "Wales" on his uniform, as does Prince William (of Wales).

Apart from that, lots of people have their formal first names - the ones on their birth certificates - but are known to friends and family by another name. It isn't some sort of oddity confined to Royalty.

For instance, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair - who liked to be referred to as "Tony" on all occasions, formal or otherwise.

David Lindsay said...

George VI had a brother called George (the Duke of Kent), and Albert was felt to be too German so soon after the First World War. George was one of his middle names.

On a sixtieth birthday documentary this week, Charles came across as possibly Britain's pre-eminent paleocon, with his work in support of traditional arts and crafts; his appreciation of the relationship between Truth, Goodness and Beauty; his opposition to zoning, whether by function (residential and commercial) or by class; his understanding that Communism would come back if capitalism were unfettered; and his championing of so many other causes dear to the hearts of those of us who are conservationists and not environmentalists, even down to saving the red squirrel.

But he also came across as pro-EU, which paleocons occasionally are, because they see it as Christendom, which is exactly what it is not.

And then there was the syncretism. And the environmentalism instead of conservationism. And the silly yet nasty cult of the silly yet nasty Dalai Lama.

Will the real Prince Charles please stand up? We certainly need him to. Many of us would be proud to be called, as it were, Carlists: "Dios, Patria, Fueros, Rey", indeed, just so long as the "Patria" in question were the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

It is rubbish that a constitutional monarchy must be "purely ceremonial". Liberty and democracy are not the same thing, and the role of the House of Lords as a check on majoritarian tyranny has been ruthlessly subverted by New Labour, although the powers are still there if Their Lordships were minded to use them.

As much as anything else, when the media that so insist have driven from the parliamentary process all but a very narrow (and not very popular or widespread) view, then someone still has to stand up for traditional arts and crafts; for the relationship between Truth, Goodness and Beauty; his opposition to zoning, whether by function (residential and commercial) or by class; for the realisation that Communism would come back if capitalism were unfettered; and for so many other causes dear to the hearts of those of us who are conservationists and not environmentalists, even down to saving the red squirrel.

Someone still has to stand up for "Dios, Patria, Fueros, Rey", just so long as the "Patria" in question is the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

But no one can do that who is away with such things as European federalism, or syncretism, or environmentalism instead of conservationism, or the silly yet nasty cult of the silly yet nasty Dalai Lama.

Anonymous said...

[Following Jafo].... or Anthony Neil Wedgewood Benn, the reluctant Viscount Stansgate.

Anonymous said...

Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina.

This sort of thing isn't unprecedented and he should be able to call himself George VII if he so wishes, and assuming he does become King.

Long live the Queen.

Malcolm Redfellow said...

Morris Hickey @ 1.26 pm et alii:

Not to mention Gideon George Oliver Osborne (not, necessarily, the character from Vanity Fair). Nor even one prompted by Mr Wrinkled Weasel (all together now:)
Now Rocky Racoon, he fell back in his room
Only to find Gideon's Bible
Gideon checked out. and he left it no doubt
To help with good Rocky's revival.


Ah, the old ones are the best ones.

Or Nicholas Le Quesne Herbert.

Or Christopher Stephen Grayling.

And numerous others.

After all, not many post here (or elsewhere) under their "given" names. This one included.

Anonymous said...

Malcolm Redfellow - surely that isn't a real name?

Anonymous said...

Malcolm redfelkow, or James Gordon Brown..?

David Lindsay said...

On children In Need, James Gordon Brown should have performed a tribute to his late namesake, the Godfather of Soul, the hardest-working man in showbusiness.

And Ann Widdecome, whose office is run by Debbie Harry's former manager and who is herself now blonde, should have performed a medley of the greatest hits of Blondie.

neil craig said...

It has been done before as you say but I think with the long time he has been around & known as Charles this would look extremely silly.

Despite, or perhaps because of the failures of Charles I & the Bonny Prince the name has considerably more cachet than George.

Anybody fancy explaining to American tourists outside Buck House why we are loyally asking God to look out for King George?