What's in a (royal) name?
Funny thing about regnal names. I don't know if it's intentional, but after a particularly disastrous or exhausting reign, British royal names tend to get retired. For instance, there has never been a Stephen II or John II on the English throne. There has never been a Richard IV or a Henry IX or a James III. Edwards and Georges we have had in plenty, although Edward VIII may have put paid to his name for a while.
There was only a William III because nobody had imagined he would be king. Same goes for his wife, Queen Mary II. So, considering the strange and not-very-successful reigns and pretended reigns of the various Charlies, it seems odd to me that there will be a Charles III. Of course, the new king has a surfeit of names he could go by: Charles Philip Arthur George. But there has never been a King Philip since Mary I's husband -- and he's not someone the English care to remember. And while there have been several Arthurs in prospect, somehow that seems an unlucky name -- or one nobody could live up to. As for Georges, well, there's been plenty of them. I wonder why Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip chose Charles as their firstborn's primary name.
Of course, nobody imagined for the longest time anybody making Good Queen Bess into Elizabeth I. But then, it happened. So, I guess we'll get used to Charles III. In due course, we'll see William V, I suppose (unless Charles bungles it so badly that the Brits eliminate his position). And we'll all get used to it.
There was only a William III because nobody had imagined he would be king. Same goes for his wife, Queen Mary II. So, considering the strange and not-very-successful reigns and pretended reigns of the various Charlies, it seems odd to me that there will be a Charles III. Of course, the new king has a surfeit of names he could go by: Charles Philip Arthur George. But there has never been a King Philip since Mary I's husband -- and he's not someone the English care to remember. And while there have been several Arthurs in prospect, somehow that seems an unlucky name -- or one nobody could live up to. As for Georges, well, there's been plenty of them. I wonder why Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip chose Charles as their firstborn's primary name.
Of course, nobody imagined for the longest time anybody making Good Queen Bess into Elizabeth I. But then, it happened. So, I guess we'll get used to Charles III. In due course, we'll see William V, I suppose (unless Charles bungles it so badly that the Brits eliminate his position). And we'll all get used to it.