Re: When Charles is King . . .

[LouisFerdinand]

^^^Yes Charles has been used by two British monarchs, but not by the Hanover/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor line that the current Prince of Wales is more strongly associated with as a member of the BRF. If he chooses to reign under a different name, then I do believe that he'll lean toward the historic names associated with those houses: George, Edward or William rather than one from the House of Stuart.

Recent history shows that among the descendants of Queen Victoria, male monarchs have not ruled under the names given to them at birth. (And it is likely that people may have found that to be "eccentric" or "precious" even in the past two centuries.) Taking the facts into consideration, I do believe that Charles will reign under a different name when his reign begins.  :)

Not entirely true The Kaiser was given the name Wilhelm and reigned as Wilhelm, George VI was given the name George which he reigned under Edward VIII was given the name Edward and had he been crowned would have reigned as such.  Victoria's descendants many were name Albert not a traditional British name of a monarch or Victoria George VII chose to reign as George so as to be seen to carry on as his father would after his brother abdicated. His daughter Elizabeth II chose her given name as the only other Elizabeth as a Regnant Queen was the daughter of Henry VIII. I believe Charles should rule under his given name as serving as the longest heir to the throne that is what he is known as and any name change as King would would be extremely difficult for heads of state, diplomats, the people to see him as anyone other then Charles.

@Trudie-I was thinking of British monarchs when I referred to Victoria's descendants. Sorry I should have been more clear because as we both know she had many of them throughout European royalty.
Double post auto-merged: October 29, 2016, 05:23:35 AM

An Interesting debate and posts, heres some interesting things ive noticed. Because HM has ruled for so long, as a society, we've kind of lost the familiarity of the royal protocols and history of the naming of regents, which used to happen a lot more in earlier times. I've noticed some interesting examples of shall we say the students of the process of royalty as a whole, compared to say ppl like me, that have a single, or a few favorite members, and follow events mostly because of that person/people.

Also, I've noticed that ppl like me, specifically shall we say Diana fans, are against him changing his name for other reasons. I dont want to speak for others but it seems like an attempt to try and sanitize his history, hoping that as time passes, people will focus more on King (Insert Name here) than his time as Prince Charles, maybe hoping after enough years ppl will just forget he was Prince Charles or that time reduced to a few lines in the history books.

I also agree after almost 70 years of calling Charles, Charles, it will be hard to call him something else, but hes been successful in transitioning to using Duke of Cornwall to accommodate a lesser title for Camilla.

There would be something creepy if Charles used George and had Camilla use Elizabeth as her "Queen name."

:wacko: Yes it would be creepy if a consort changed their name especially if they're from the same culture/nation. Has that ever happened in English/British history? AFAIK only the monarchs in the UK have selected a regnal name, but if someone else knows I do know that other queen/empress consorts have done so ie: Princess Dagmar of Denmark became Maria Federovona when she married the Tsarevich Alexander.

You inquired if a Consort in English/British history had a name change.   
Henry I was King of England from 1100 to 1135. His wife Queen Matilda was from Scotland. She originally was a Princess Edith.