King Charles III, or something else?

**Peter Crowe** · 11th November 12, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11th November 12, 03:55 PM

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.

**Pleater** · 11th November 12, 04:26 PM

Sorry, Trefor - I was only conjecturing that, as Charles was born when his mother was 22 years old, he would become King at almost 80 if she lives to be 101 years old, like her mother.

It is possible that he might not survive to that age, due to accident or ill health, so my thoughts were simply that William might succeed to the throne as his father was no longer with us.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

**MacMillan of Rathdown** · 11th November 12, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by JSFMACLJR

A very interesting photograph! The keen-eyed will note that this peer ( a baron or Lord of Parliament ) is not obeying the Lord Chamberlain's Dress Regulations for Court: he is not wearing a plaid!

Most likely he has dispensed with the plaid to reduce the bulk under his robe of estate. As to the identity of the peer, I'd suggest it is probably Lord Forbes; in all likelihood he is speaking to his son who would have acted as his page at the coronation.

**Jay** · 13th November 12, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Pleater

Sorry, Trefor - I was only conjecturing that, as Charles was born when his mother was 22 years old, he would become King at almost 80 if she lives to be 101 years old, like her mother.

It is possible that he might not survive to that age, due to accident or ill health, so my thoughts were simply that William might succeed to the throne as his father was no longer with us.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

Very strong possibility.

**JSFMACLJR** · 13th November 12, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jay

Very strong possibility.

It's amusing how everyone assumes Prince Charles will die before his mother! Look, his father is 91! His grandmother The Queen Mother was 101 when she died. His other grandmother, Lady Strathmore, was 75. Lord Strathmore ( Prince Charles' maternal grandfather ) was 89. His great-grandmother Queen Mary was 85. His great-grandmother Princess Alice of Greece and Denmark was 84. His great-grandmother Lady Strathmore, was 89. So obviously The Prince of Wales has some longevity in his genes. All this talk about The Queen outliving him is rubbish!

**ThistleDown** · 13th November 12, 10:50 PM

Delightful topic, this!

There's little profit to be found in all this speculating. Perhaps more important to try predicting our own age at time of death.

All that really needs said is that we'll not hope for it to be soon, but when it does Prince Charles is a good man and he will be a fine king.

**Peter Crowe** · 14th November 12, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by ThistleDown

Delightful topic, this!

There's little profit to be found in all this speculating. Perhaps more important to try predicting our own age at time of death.

All that really needs said is that we'll not hope for it to be soon, but when it does Prince Charles is a good man and he will be a fine king.

I absolutely agree with you Rex. Well stated sir!

**TheOfficialBren** · 14th November 12, 11:01 AM

Here, here. We should not judge him so harshly. He is a man and is fallible. Most men have a few indiscretions in their younger years. He has seasoned as he has matured. He is less stodgy and will be a better king than a prince, I believe. I also agree that William is not yet ready, though he will be a great king when he is prepared properly.

I believe he will stick with Charles.