Discussion:
Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To The Throne?
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-08 19:52:58 UTC
Permalink
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.

Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.

However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Turenne
2007-11-08 20:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession...
I must have been absent the day we 'did' the Stuarts at school -
but.....

James I
I
I
Charles I
I
I
Charles II

How are Charles I and II not descended from James I & VI?

Or am I missing something?

Richard L
Joseph McMillan
2007-11-08 21:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turenne
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession...
I must have been absent the day we 'did' the Stuarts at school -
but.....
<snip>
Post by Turenne
Or am I missing something?
I think what DSH is trying to say is that Charles is not biologically
a direct descendant of either of the Kings Charles.

He is, of course, in the royal line of succession from them, as he is
from every other previous monarch of the UK, Great Britain, England,
and Scotland.

I'm not sure what not being a direct biological descendant of a prior
king has to do with one's regnal name and number. Charles is also not
a lineal descendant of George IV. Neither were his grandfather and
great-grandfather, but that didn't keep them from being George V and
VI. Charles's great-great-grandfather wasn't a direct descendant of
Edward VI, but that didn't keep him from being Edward VII. Why should
not being a direct descendant of Charles I or II keep the current
Prince of Wales from someday being Charles III?

Joseph McMillan
Turenne
2007-11-08 22:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Golly! Is that really what he was saying? He gets more obtuse by the
day. He knows full well that the names of monarchs have no link to the
relationship between the monarchs. Look at Charles XIV of Sweden..!

Richard
Hal
2007-11-08 23:15:11 UTC
Permalink
On Nov 8, 2:52 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <***@excelsior.com> wrote:
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-08 23:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !

All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.

In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 01:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Whack all imperialists
2007-11-09 01:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
--
Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agreed - he would probably spend most of his time practising being a
tampon for Comeinand Park-Yer Balls
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 09:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read somewhere
that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
-- Count Baldoni
Who really cares anyway?
Exactly.
--
Count Baldoni
The Doctor
2007-11-09 03:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
Olivier
2007-11-09 11:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
And William is a descendant of king Charles II by his mother !!
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:21:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
Renia
2007-11-13 14:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:11:06 -0000, "Robert Peffers"
Post by Robert Peffers
Post by The Doctor
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Why?
Why indeed !
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about. I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Hopefully William will tkae the crown.
--
Member - Liberal International
God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!
What difference would that make? William is no better or worse than any
other member of the very large Royal family.
Currently numbering around 40 members.
They've whittled them down a bit. Someone else will know the details,
but only The Queen, her hubby, 4 kids, and the grandkids count, these days.
Dave
2007-11-09 13:43:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:57:43 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Hal
I'll spare the Irish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
But I expect Hines is. After all, he is descended from every other
historical figure of note.
I think you may have misspelled "hysterical"...
Breton
2007-11-09 13:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?

Breton
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 15:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.

Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI

The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
David
2007-11-09 17:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I am not trolling. Look at the lifespan of former Prince's of Wales,
and former male monarchs. If you look at the women then they far
outlive the men.
Queen Victoria
Queen Mary
Princess Alice
Princess Alexandra
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Edward VII
Prince Albert
George VI
The women all lived to grand old ages while the men all suffered ill
health and died young. If Charles ever makes King which I doubt that
he will then he will be there for 2 years tops.
--
Count Baldoni
Not all of these people are closely related to each other!

In general, yes, women in the First World live longer than men.
However, Charles' parents are both long-lived: his father is 86 and
healthy, his mother is 81 and healthy. Barring any accidents, Charles
can expect to live at least into his 80s. At nearly 59, Charles is
already older than his grandfather George VI, whose early death was
probably not due to congenital factors. Edward VIII had lived to be
nearly 78, after all, and I expect that Charles lives a healthier life
than both men.

If Charles lives to the age of at least 80 (in 2028) he will almost
certainly outlive his mother, even if she matches the late Queen
Mother's century. Obviously Charles will not have one of the famously
long reigns of British history, but that is the price to be paid for
being the child of a long-lived parent -- as was discovered not only
by Edward VII, but also George IV and before him Edward the Black
Prince.
Robert Peffers
2007-11-09 21:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
Well his last wife was younger than he and she is very dead.
What has age got to do with it?
People die at every age.
Baldoni <baldoniXXV@gmail.com>
2007-11-09 21:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni
Breton
2007-11-09 21:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
--
Count Baldoni- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I though you said you weren't trolling.

Breton
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:14:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:22:56 GMT, Baldoni
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
I read
somewhere that Charles will take the name George or Edward if he ever
becomes King.
There has been speculation that Charles will take the name George as
his regnal name when he succeeds his mother. That would make him
George VII. However, the choice of a regnal name is up to him.
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
In all likelihood the present Queen will out live him.
Well, no. The Queen is 81, Charles is 59. Both are in good health.
What makes you say that she will outlive him (beyond being a troll of
course)?
Breton
I forgot to add that Charles is a rampant homosexual and trying to hide
this has caused him to age prematurely.
I think that's a gross libel.
Citizen Jimserac
2007-11-12 12:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).

With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.

Citizen Jimserac
Turenne
2007-11-12 18:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Citizen Jimserac
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
I can only assume that you are joking when you make that assertion.
There is no question of Charles will abdicate after he accedes to the
throne. There is no reason for him to abdicate, and I'm sure he has no
inclination to do so either. As far as a weakened monarchy is
concerned; the monarchy is no weaker than it was a 150 years ago. The
monarchy has survived Victoria locking herself up in Osborne/ Balmoral
for decades, Edward VII's infidelities, Edward VIII's abdication and
the adverse public reaction to the Royal Family's handling of matters
after Diana's death.


Richard Lichten
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:16:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:59:45 -0800, Citizen Jimserac
Post by Citizen Jimserac
Post by Breton
Post by Baldoni <***@gmail.com>
All worthless old twaddle that nobody really cares about.
Really? If no one cares about it, how do you explain all those folks
in here posting about it? More to the point, why are YOU here?
Exactly my point on those who asserted that Diana was of absolutely no
importance. Over 1,000 posts at last count on that thread (of course
LOTS of intriguing side topics, too).
With regard to Prince Charles, the matter is irrelevant since it is
obvious that he will abdicate. The presence of Cam would be too
weakening to an already weakened monarchy.
Citizen Jimserac
Boy, we're really up to our necks in crap tonight , aren't we!
David
2007-11-09 15:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
As has been pointed out, this is not particularly relevant.

I'm not sure why Princess Elizabeth chose the name "Charles" in 1948
-- perhaps it seemed more romantic -- but it's a little late to go
back now.

Anyway, there's a big difference between being a Charles and being a
George --

Random entry from the diary of a Charles:

CHARLES: London rioted again today. Some fool of a Puritan minister
(Dr. Morefruit Muddifoot, perhaps) says that after burning the
Catholics they will come and chop off my head. Ha, ha! What an
amusing people I rule.

GEORGE: Unable to hunt again due to the GOUT!!!! Mem: Find good
excuse to HANG that Scotch dog of a doctor!!!! Also, add another
course of meat pies to breakfast.
George Knighton
2007-11-10 13:11:41 UTC
Permalink
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.

It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:01:05 UTC
Permalink
What has he said about George III?

DSH
Post by George Knighton
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
Claude Latremouille
2007-11-11 05:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Knighton
In addition to having a natural affinity for George VI and George V,
the Prince of Wales is known to be an admirer of George III.
It seems to me that there would be a very good chance that he would
pick that name for his reign.
*
Not to mention that George is one of his given names...
*
Have a nice day, folks!
*
Claude Latrémouille

=== ***@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-10 16:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?

Interesting Connection...

Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>

DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Feck all sassanaigh
2007-11-10 16:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:17:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:50:24 -0800, Feck all sassanaigh
Post by Feck all sassanaigh
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
Interesting Connection...
Perhaps he waxed rhapsodic during an American visit? <g>
DSH
Dear Spencer,
As I recall George III and Prince Charles have a hobby
in common ... both being avid farmers. Charles is very interested in
organic
farming.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And in the USA he could become George Michael 11 and hang around
public loos acting as a tampon..
Even despite your example, I find that unlikely.
Turlough
2007-11-10 18:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
jl
2007-11-12 10:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?

Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
Turlough
2007-11-12 11:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jl
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
Watch two people doing sign language?
I'm afraid we'll never know, Jochen. The man is quite shy, you
understand. You have a great web site though... :>)
Sacha
2007-11-12 11:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
"HIS passion for the countryside was mocked, he had a mania for architecture
and some dismissed him as a dangerous eccentric. Now a public rehabilitation
of King George III is being sought by the Prince of Wales.
Today ³mad² King George¹s place in history is as the monarch who lost the
American colonies. But in a BBC documentary the Prince says that his
ancestor¹s energy and down-to-earth charm might even have persuaded American
revolutionaries to change their minds if only a royal tour across the
Atlantic had been possible in the 18th century.
History has obscured the real George III, who demonstrated some of the most
attractive traits of any monarch, says the Prince, describing him as one of
Britain¹s most dutiful, cultured and misunderstood rulers.
For all the bouts of mania, enshrined on film in The Madness of King George,
the King was definitely not mad. ³I¹ve read the doctor¹s reports and the
King¹s correspondence in the royal archives and I concluded that yes, he was
ill, but he was not insane,² the Prince says in the BBC Two Timewatch
documentary, to be broadcast next week.
The Queen is backing the rehabilitation campaign. In March, Buckingham
Palace will stage the first major exhibition of artefacts collected by
George III and his consort, Queen Charlotte. The 500 pieces from the Royal
Collection present George as the era¹s leading patron of music, the arts and
sciences.
³For many years I¹ve been fascinated by my ancestor,² the Prince says.
³George III led Britain through 60 years of enormous social upheaval,
industrial revolution and terrible hardships inflicted by war with Napoleon.
Yet history remembers him above all as the Œmad king¹ or the king who lost
America. This is a travesty.²

extracted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1003367.ece
26.01.04

and from The Guardian 27.12.05

"Clarence House yesterday issued a pained denial of claims that the Prince
of Wales has held private discussions with "trusted friends" about the
possibility of reigning as George VII rather than risk the negative
connotations attached to the name King Charles.
...................
One such friend told the Guardian: "Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales
knows he does not sit around talking to his chums, discussing what he wants
to be called. Inasmuch as officials have discussed it with him at accession
planning meetings the thinking was that he would remain Charles.""

(posted to atr only)
--
Sacha
The Highlander
2007-11-13 05:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turlough
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Have you seen any actual discussions by Prince Charles on George III?
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Turlough
2007-11-13 11:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
Post by Turlough
How do you *see* a discussion, DSH?
He's fishing for a chance to announce that Charles and he are cousins.
Where did all these kooks come from, Highlander? I was going to ask Auld
Bob to wheel out the Burns Unit, to speed up the inevitable, but these
whacks would probably enjoy the poetry and prose and start threads on
the pros and cons of alliteration and other incredibly fascinating
devices. I was also going to toss out one of my standard incendiary
*some of Queen Mum's ancestors came from Roscommon, etc* quips, but I
didn't want to be responsible for any of these olde duffers having a
stroke...
The Highlander
2007-11-13 04:19:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:52:58 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
It's worth noting that Prince Charles is NOT descended in the Royal Line of
Succession from EITHER Kings Charles I or Charles II.
Prince Charles descends from James I, in the Royal Line of Succession, who
was James VI of Scotland and succeeded Queen Elizabeth, his first cousin,
twice removed to the throne in 1603.
Allow me to remind you that there is no such title as "XXX, King of
Scotland. The Scottish monarch is "XXX, King of Scots" or "XXX, Queen
of Scots." That is why Mary was called Mary, Queen of Scots.

Were you to call George Bush "Prime Minister of the United States". it
would be just as inaccurate as "King of Scotland".

Scotland belongs to its people; the King or Queen rules the people.
Because Scotland is partly tribal, she is also High Chief and
entertains the clan chiefs to lunch once a year in Ednburgh after a
short service at St. Giles Cathedral, where the chiefs renew their
vows of allegiance to her. Some of them are not British, their
ancestors having emigrated or fled after the two unsuccessful
insurrections to place Bonnie Prince Charlie's father on the throne.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
However Prince Charles IS descended in the Royal Line of Succession from
FIVE of the six previous Kings George -- but NOT from King George IV.
There is no requirement that he need be. He is descended from Queen
Victoria, whose father died eight months after she was born. She
inherited the throne following the death of her uncle, William IV, who
died without legitimate issue.

Your comment seems completely gratuitous,
Post by D. Spencer Hines
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
------------------------------------------
The Heir-Apparent _may_ choose whatever name he/she wishes to be known
as; 'David' was King as 'Edward'; 'Albert' was King (and Crowned) as
'George'; while the current Queen chose to retain her Christian name....
presumably only the Heir-Apparent knows what name he will choose for
Kingship .... however I'm sure there's enough bookies who'll accept your
bet as to which it might be.
Aye maybe he doesn't want to be associated with previous kings called
Charles. Scared he'll lose his head perhaps :-)
Allan
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...