UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[Not Me, Us]

Can anyone tell me *why* Charles should/must go by something else? I really have no clue about British monarchal politics or procedures or protocols, so what's the deal with this? Why can't he just call himself 'King Charles?'

Charles I was a tyrant and Charles II was a womanizer. Plus, wouldn't it be cool to have an actual King Arthur?

I get why he's just going with Charles though, it'd be odd to change your name when you're 73 years old.

Not sure what the problem is then...

Honestly, it's pretty fitting given King Chuck's history.

[Schiff for Senate]

Can anyone tell me *why* Charles should/must go by something else? I really have no clue about British monarchal politics or procedures or protocols, so what's the deal with this? Why can't he just call himself 'King Charles?'

Charles I was a tyrant and Charles II was a womanizer. Plus, wouldn't it be cool to have an actual King Arthur?

I get why he's just going with Charles though, it'd be odd to change your name when you're 73 years old.

Not sure what the problem is then...

Honestly, it's pretty fitting given King Chuck's history.

That was the joke…figured it’d be self-explanatory.

[Joe Republic]

Can anyone tell me *why* Charles should/must go by something else? I really have no clue about British monarchal politics or procedures or protocols, so what's the deal with this? Why can't he just call himself 'King Charles?'

Nearly all kings/queens have gone by their own first name, but not quite all.  Both Edward VII's and George VI's first names were Albert, but they chose to use one of their middle names as king because (in Edward's opinion) the name Albert "should stand alone" out of respect for his father, and George VI followed that precedent.  Technically Victoria's first name was Alexandrina, but she had gone by Victoria throughout her childhood.

So the option to take another name is always there, but rarely used.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I do find it odd that the showrunners would choose to have the Queen die just as the "PM Truss" story arc gets going. I wonder if it is a sign that they don't expect Liz Truss to improve ratings and so have opted for something "bigger" to improve viewership.

The story arcs and angles have been becoming increasingly far-fetched and confusing since the debut of Tory Time in 2010 but this takes the cake. Hopes were high after the 2019 season that programming would return to normality but that clearly didn't happen.

The showrunners have indicated that the show will remain on the air until at least 2024, which leaves two more seasons, but after the 2024 season with its general election storyline, there will be calls to cancel the show. A sequel named Labour Land could then potentially take its place and boost viewership.

I personally think they went a little overboard with Suella Braverman. Like I get they needed new subplots, but it seems like the showrunners at Langley just went with the most cartoonishly evil character they could come up with.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank God we didn't get another George. This is such an overused regal name and as a product of the travesty that was the Hanoverian succession it really doesn't deserve that honor. Hopefully the British monarchy will end with either a King Charles or a King William - both would be excellent historical rhymes in their own ways.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Charles isn't any more 'tainted' as a name than George - the last two Georges would generally be seen to have been alright, but none of the four previous ones would exactly be seen as setting particularly auspicious examples, if for different reasons. The main reason why it wasn't chosen as a name for a long time was because it was associated with the Jacobite cause, but that's an extremely distant memory now. The one name that is essentially forbidden is Arthur, and that's for (rationally?) superstitious reasons as Prince Arthurs have a habit of dying young.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

If you want to see what Boris Johnson would have said in an address to the nation if he had still been PM then, er, look at the tribute he's put out whilst not being PM.

[CumbrianLefty]

If you want to see what Boris Johnson would have said in an address to the nation if he had still been PM then, er, look at the tribute he's put out whilst not being PM.

His just missing out on the chance to self-aggrandize is simply so utterly glorious, maybe the best thing in all this.

I hope he is seething constantly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you want to see what Boris Johnson would have said in an address to the nation if he had still been PM then, er, look at the tribute he's put out whilst not being PM.

His just missing out on this chance to self-aggrandize is simply so utterly glorious, maybe the best thing in all this.

I hope he is seething constantly.

https://twitter.com/dmk1793/status/1567953346354446336

[If my soul was made of stone]

"Liz was a great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jelly whose righteousness glistened like a wet otter. The Tories' great victories in the past four elections made her breasts bigger and extended her lifespan by at least six years. Our rivers are full of jellied eels. You cannot have freedom without kleptocracy. Read Seventy-two Virgins."

[EastAnglianLefty]

Charles isn't any more 'tainted' as a name than George - the last two Georges would generally be seen to have been alright, but none of the four previous ones would exactly be seen as setting particularly auspicious examples, if for different reasons. The main reason why it wasn't chosen as a name for a long time was because it was associated with the Jacobite cause, but that's an extremely distant memory now. The one name that is essentially forbidden is Arthur, and that's for (rationally?) superstitious reasons as Prince Arthurs have a habit of dying young.

Also John, partially due to the terrible performance of the only previous one, and partially for the same reason as Arthur.

I don't think James has been used since the 17th century, for the same reasons as Charles, but like with Charles I don't think it would cause a stir now. For some reason Robert, though a very popular name amongst the Stuarts prior to Unification, never seems to have been used after 1603.

[Blair]

I also think with the way of the royal family now and how their profile has changed that it’s less likely for name changes bar a sudden set of deaths and upheaval (see the death of George V and the Abdication)

[LBJer]

Can anyone tell me *why* Charles should/must go by something else? I really have no clue about British monarchal politics or procedures or protocols, so what's the deal with this? Why can't he just call himself 'King Charles?'

Charles I was a tyrant and Charles II was a womanizer.

But isn't Charles II (although not Charles I) pretty highly regarded today?

Ronald Hutton had this to say about him: "Other kings had inspired more respect, but perhaps only Henry VIII had endeared himself to the popular imagination as much as this one. He was the playboy monarch, naughty but nice, the hero of all who prized urbanity, tolerance, good humour, and the pursuit of pleasure above the more earnest, sober, or material virtues."

One could do a lot worse than that. 

[MABA 2020]

I'm glad his sticking with Charles, these kind of superstitions surrounding names are dumb and I hope King Charlie can dispel any ideas of "Charles" being unlucky

[Blair]

His speech is very Charles.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

He says "mama" and "papa" in his speech.
Nice.
I liked it.

[Alcibiades]

His speech is very Charles.

Not that that was necessarily a bad thing in the circumstances, mind. Its more human touch made for a nice contrast to our robotic Prime Minister’s remarks.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Charles isn't any more 'tainted' as a name than George - the last two Georges would generally be seen to have been alright, but none of the four previous ones would exactly be seen as setting particularly auspicious examples, if for different reasons. The main reason why it wasn't chosen as a name for a long time was because it was associated with the Jacobite cause, but that's an extremely distant memory now. The one name that is essentially forbidden is Arthur, and that's for (rationally?) superstitious reasons as Prince Arthurs have a habit of dying young.

Also John, partially due to the terrible performance of the only previous one, and partially for the same reason as Arthur.

Stephen as well, potentially?

[brucejoel99]

"Over here, just behind the camera, you'll see my son William, who at this rate will be your 3rd Monarch by this time tomorrow:"

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1568302101771522051

[Silent Hunter]

He says "mama" and "papa" in his speech.
Nice.
I liked it.

I was starting to tear up at the end.

[Vosem]

Charles isn't any more 'tainted' as a name than George - the last two Georges would generally be seen to have been alright, but none of the four previous ones would exactly be seen as setting particularly auspicious examples, if for different reasons. The main reason why it wasn't chosen as a name for a long time was because it was associated with the Jacobite cause, but that's an extremely distant memory now. The one name that is essentially forbidden is Arthur, and that's for (rationally?) superstitious reasons as Prince Arthurs have a habit of dying young.

Also John, partially due to the terrible performance of the only previous one, and partially for the same reason as Arthur.

Stephen as well, potentially?

Seems likely that we're going to go a full millennium without a new Stephen or a new Matilda.

[afleitch]

It feels like the Tony Blair Power Hour on the BBC right now.

[Mike88]

Spanish journalism has amazing pundits...

https://twitter.com/diana_aceves_/status/1567973590997389312

What lies ahead, what kind of reign can we expect right now with Carlos III on the throne?

The first thing we can expect is a shorter reign than his mother's.

[Torrain]

I’ve not tended to find Charles much of an impressive figure in the past, but I thought he (and the Palace team) did an admirable job, broadly hitting the right notes in his speech. It was certainly more emotional than the speeches QE2 gave, but it fit the mood.

I mean, he led off with a tribute to QE2, reiterated the importance of service and the Commonwealth, and then implied he’d do his best to step back from political advocacy (which will assuage some concerns).

Refusing to wait the traditional period, and just naming William as Prince of Wales now gets rid of a lot of pointless media speculation, and helps reinforce the transition (it certainly gave me slight vertigo for a moment). Seems like a good call.

Explicitly celebrating Harry and Meghan feels like the best way to avoid those circumstances getting another round of speculation (“King snubs Harry by leaving him out of first speech!” is a headline they did well to avoid).

He does kinda talk about Camilla like she’s going to be our fun new stepmother, but that’s just a longstanding Charles thing.

[afleitch]

I’ve not tended to find Charles much of an impressive figure in the past, but I thought he (and the Palace team) did an admirable job, broadly hitting the right notes in his speech. It was certainly more emotional than the speeches QE2 gave, but it fit the mood.

I mean, he led off with a tribute to QE2, reiterated the importance of service and the Commonwealth, and then implied he’d do his best to step back from political advocacy (which will assuage some concerns).

Refusing to wait the traditional period, and just naming William as Prince of Wales now gets rid of a lot of pointless media speculation, and helps reinforce the transition (it certainly gave me slight vertigo for a moment). Seems like a good call.

Explicitly celebrating Harry and Meghan feels like the best way to avoid those circumstances getting another round of speculation (“King snubs Harry by leaving him out of first speech!” is a headline they did well to avoid).

He does kinda talk about Camilla like she’s going to be our fun new stepmother, but that’s just a longstanding Charles thing.

I think the acknowledgement of Harry and Meghan is a 'shut up now' to the press. Even though there is allegedly genuine strain between him and the King, I don't think he's one for the constant right wing gossip around them.