I mean, his very first decision…
Comments
The BBC reports:
He will be known as King Charles III.
That was the first decision of the new king’s reign. He could have chosen from any of his four names – Charles Philip Arthur George.
So, the man could have been King Arthur and he chose Charles III?
Lame.
Categories
Tags
Several decades ago I spent the summer working as a camp counselor for the Sioux YMCA. One of the other counselors was a member of the Sioux nation and his last name was Clown, not an uncommon name on the reservation being the English translation of Heyoka, the title of an important role in tribal life. He told us that Sioux kids could pick their mom’s last name or their dad’s. We asked what was his alternative to Clown and he told us Fights the Thunder. Whaaaaaa? You had your choice between Clown and Fights the Thunder and you chose Clown? I still liked him but, seriously. . . .
@Kathy: Now I do. Thanks, Kathy!
@Sleeping Dog:
Bite your tongue. No one is as appalling as Trump.
@CSK:
I’ve seen reports that he has been known to closest family and friends as Arthur.
And there was speculation that he might take the throne as George VII
Also some speculation that Charles liked the idea of King Philip; but was apparently ruled on historical grounds.
We’ve had a King Phillip before, despite him being left out of the lists.
Didn’t work out very well. 🙁
But name shifts by British monarchs aren’t that unusual
The late Queen’s father’s first name was Albert; he reigned as George VI
Queen Victoria’s first name was Alexandrina.
King Edward VII’s first name was Albert (hence him being often referred to as “Bertie”) and he had been widely expected to be King Albert; decided against.
@Scott:
One day into the failed King Charles monarchy……..
King Charles’s sinking approval ratings spell doom for Democrats.
@JohnSF:
Oh, I know. And Edward VIII was “David” to family and friends.
@Sleeping Dog:
There was a joke circulating around the U.K. when I lived there to the effect that there’d be a Brit version of Porgy and Bess titled Corgi and Beth.
The first two King Charles were memorable but not in a good way.
Charles III has a very good chance of being an improvement on his predecessors.
@Franklin:
Alright, King Chuck it is.
Australians would never call him Chuck because that word is Australian slang for vomit. They would chuck a wobbly first.
The Georges
by Walter Savage Landor
George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second;
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third?
When from earth the Fourth descended
(God be praised!) the Georges ended.
Elizabeth II used that name because it was her best known and primary name, and she’s not one to be intimidated.
So, we’ve known Charles all his life as Charles, it’s logical, and following in his mothers footsteps to be King Charles, given he’s been Prince Charles so long.
If one is simply named “Arthur” there’s no presumption. Consider Arthur Dent. Or Dudley Moore’s Arthur Bach. Add “King” in front of it and all eyebrows raise.
@Lost in Quebec:
I thought the Australian slang for vomiting was “chunder.”
@Lost in Quebec: Possibly just a shortened version of upchuck.
Anyway, the whole thing is sofa king dumb
@Mister Bluster: I’d love the ability to upvote OTB posts, including Taylor’s photography.
@Andy:
@Steven L. Taylor:
In all honesty, it was widely thought at one time he might go for George as regnal name.
As said: Edward VII and George VI were known by other names (both being Albert) before accession, and neither were that young when they came to the throne.
British upper class use of different names (recognised names, not just nicknames) in public and personal life is not that unusual.
See (the very non-royal) ex-PM Johnson: Boris in public; Alexander in private.
@Mister Bluster:..thumbs up.
I only looked at my comment at least 5 or 6 times as I know that I am prone to make these kinds of errors. Where is spell check when I need it?
I’m afraid Monty Python forever ended the choice of “Arthur”….
(God be praised!) the Georges ended.
George V: “I say, hang, on a minute, Landor!”
George VI: “Bloody cheek!”
@Joe: Any possibility that Sioux children understand the role “Clown” in society in ways you don’t/didn’t? Or that “Fights the Thunder” has the same qualities as “shouts at the clouds?”
@Kathy: This sounds like one of those things that I can live my whole life in ignorance of. Thanks for the warning, Kathy. 😉
There’s also:
“George the Third
Ought never to have occurred.
One can only wonder
At so grotesque a blunder.”
Edmund Clerihew Bentley
@Ken_L:
Hah.
Arthur II not an issue.
– No actual, historical record of an Arthur I in the first place
– Pre Conquest monarchs don’t count in the count.
Edward the Confessor: is he Edward I? Nope
Also at least two other pre- Conquest Edwards IIRC.
Why? Dunno: I’ve never been able to get a consistent reasoning, much beyond the logic of “f” you, you Saxon peasants!”
@JohnSF: Although there is that theory that a lot of the legends surrounding King Arthur (not the nymphs-lying-in-ponds-dispersing-swords-as-a-basis-for-political-theory part, however) were retellings of the aftereffects of volcanic catastrophes in 530-542.
