King Charles III, or something else?

[McClef]

All this talk about Charles being passed over in favour of William is Constitutional nonsense.

Nobody, not even the Queen, can disinherit the Heir Apparent (and indeed in the past there have been Monarchs who would happily have disinherited their eldest son if they could).

Assuming that he is still alive when Her Majesty draws her last breath, he becomes King at that very moment. So even if he did wish to stand down it would still take some time and a period of national morning would not be the appropriate time to do this. An instrument of Abdication and an Act of Parliament to put this into effect would be required.

So Charles would still require a name even if he only intended to be a temporary Monarch.

[Peter Crowe]

All this talk about Charles being passed over in favour of William is Constitutional nonsense.

Nobody, not even the Queen, can disinherit the Heir Apparent (and indeed in the past there have been Monarchs who would happily have disinherited their eldest son if they could).

Assuming that he is still alive when Her Majesty draws her last breath, he becomes King at that very moment. So even if he did wish to stand down it would still take some time and a period of national morning would not be the appropriate time to do this. An instrument of Abdication and an Act of Parliament to put this into effect would be required.

So Charles would still require a name even if he only intended to be a temporary Monarch.

Absolutely correct Trefor! Moreover, if you could start down the path of passing over the heir to the throne then there would be no sense in maintaining the institution of a Constitutional Monarchy which (IMHO) would be a a retrograde step for either the United Kingdom as a whole or Scotland alone if it opts for independence in 2014.

[McClef]

Indeed the royals often have several names to choose from and often their preferred name within the family may not be the official one they choose.

Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina.

Edward VII's first name was Albert.

Edward VIII was known to family and friends as David (his seventh Christian name!)

George VI was Prince Albert Frederick Arthur and George was his fourth Christian name.

One might easily discount the Philip and Arthur names but Charles has always used Charles both officially and also within the family so I for one would be surprised to see him become George VII even as part of the temporary scenario that I described above. It would also provide a reminder of the Stuarts to have a Charles III of Scotland whereas the first four of the Georges were Hanoverian which may be of less happy memory, at least as far as the first two of them are concerned.