King Charles III

[Nearly Sane]

As a republican, regnal numbers are an irrelevance.

Whether or not one is a monarchist/republican, regnal numbers have a historical relevance.  I appreciate that some here seem to regard history as irrelevant, but not everyone does.

For someone who talks about literary genres, you have a tin ear for normal expression. Besides I prefer the nickname classification Charlie the H******s, Charlie the S*****r, and Charlie the C*****d(er) asterisked as getting the forbidden error message

[Hope]

Besides I prefer the nickname classification Charlie the H******s, Charlie the S*****r, and Charlie the C*****d(er) asterisked as getting the forbidden error message

None of that means that regnal numbers have no relevance.

By the way, I try not to refer to Charles anyway.  I'd rather the monarchy jumped a generation if it is to continue.

[Nearly Sane]

Besides I prefer the nickname classification Charlie the H******s, Charlie the S*****r, and Charlie the C*****d(er) asterisked as getting the forbidden error message

None of that means that regnal numbers have no relevance.

By the way, I try not to refer to Charles anyway.  I'd rather the monarchy jumped a generation if it is to continue.

You still have a tin ear. The argument about which regnal number is 'right' is to me irrelevant. That isn't an argument about the relevance to history in any sense since this is meaningless to history, it's about worrying about things being 'right' which the position of republicanism precludes an opinion on. Useful/normally used are entirely different matters.

[Shaker]

Besides I prefer the nickname classification Charlie the H******s, Charlie the S*****r, and Charlie the C*****d(er) asterisked as getting the forbidden error message

None of that means that regnal numbers have no relevance.

By the way, I try not to refer to Charles anyway.  I'd rather the monarchy jumped a generation if it is to continue.

That's the thing about monarchies; it doesn't matter a damn what you'd rather see. You get what you get and you'd better like it, sunshine.

[Anchorman]

Whatever Westminster, Lambeth Palace or Chuck himself wants to call him, Charles 'III' he is not - just as his mum  is NOT Elizabeth 'II- regardless of Churchill's daft claim.

Yes they are.  The rule is simple:  you take the highest regnal number.  And it is just a number so stop getting your sporran in a twist.

-
So forget James I or II of the 'UK', then.

Neither of them was ever King of the UK.  Technically the earlier one was James I of England and VI of Scotland (or vice versa, if you prefer) and his son was James II of England and VII of Scotland.

Re-write history

I'm sorry, but that is what you just tried to do.  James VII/II lost the crowns in 1688.  The Acts of Union didn't happen until 1707.

-
Using your logic, then, Liz Windsor is not Lizzie 'II' of the UK, then - as there has never been a Lizzie I.

[Anchorman]

I can understand why he wouldn't want to be a Charles.  Both Charles's so far were pretty useless... oh, wait, it sounds like the ideal name for him.

IIRC, the Charles's were Stuarts; with Scotland considering independence, would he want to associate himself with a Scottish brand?   

-
Unfortunately, yes.
Chairlie has identified strongly with his silver spoon pal's hous....Dumfries House, which he helped raise £70 nillion to buy, thus enriching the already bloated coffers of Johnny Dumfries.
It's two miles from my house - google it, and, while your at it, Google 'Knockroon' - supposed to be Chairlie's Scottish Poundberry, but rapidly turning into a farce...like him, actually.

[Hope]

Using your logic, then, Liz Windsor is not Lizzie 'II' of the UK, then - as there has never been a Lizzie I.

As I understand it, Elizabeth Windsor is technically titled Queen Elizabeth in N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and only EIIR in England.  I think the problem is that the media tend to aggregate the UK and generalise and hence many of the population follow suit.

[jeremyp]

Using your logic, then, Liz Windsor is not Lizzie 'II' of the UK, then - as there has never been a Lizzie I.

There has been a Lizzie I of England which is a constituent part of the Union.

ETA if we ever have another James and we call him James III then you'll have something to complain about.  Charles III or George VII won't be a problem though.

[SqueakyVoice]

...

Or Wayne I.

Then the King's Christmas message could start with,

"Wayne One! Wayne One! Party time!  Excellent!..."

[cyberman]

Just a minor constitutional point.

Why do people assume that he will choose his own name as his regnal name? He doesn't have to be Charles III. He could be George VII.

Or Wayne I.

In the past he has said that he would use "George VII"

[Hope]

In the past he has said that he would use "George VII"

This rings a bell, though I seem to remember a suggestion, whether by him or someone else, of Arthur.

[Anchorman]

In the past he has said that he would use "George VII"

This rings a bell, though I seem to remember a suggestion, whether by him or someone else, of Arthur.

-
Wot - as in the dopey cat from the Kattomeat ad?
Good choice.
Although Benny from Top cat would have been better.

[Hope]

Wot - as in the dopey cat from the Kattomeat ad?
Good choice.
Although Benny from Top cat would have been better.

No, as in one of his given names.

[Anchorman]

Ah! you mean Arthur, after the so-called "Duke of Connaught":
Or Philip after the pillock with the mouth the size of a pit opening who sired him?

[Hope]

Ah! you mean Arthur, after the so-called "Duke of Connaught":
Or Philip after the pillock with the mouth the size of a pit opening who sired him?

and which royal pillock are you named after?   

[Anchorman]

Ah! you mean Arthur, after the so-called "Duke of Connaught":
Or Philip after the pillock with the mouth the size of a pit opening who sired him?

and which royal pillock are you named after?   

-
James, brother of Jesus.

[Hope]

James, brother of Jesus.

So, how do you know that our Charlie wasn't named after the legendary 5th or 6th century British king? 

[Anchorman]

Well, at least he was named after a potential Scot (if Arthur existed).
It would be just like the Windsor wasters to name their hope after a myth.

[Hope]

Well, at least he was named after a potential Scot (if Arthur existed).
It would be just like the Windsor wasters to name their hope after a myth.

It is likely that the Arthur that we see in things like Malory's 'Le Morte D'Arthur' and Chretian de Troyes' writings is false, but historians are divided on whether there was a king/warlord who acted in ways that would eventually become immortalised by such writing.