Will Charles be king?

[PJL]

We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.

He won't be Chuck when he is king though. George VII instead.

[The Brain]

Is there something generally wrong with Charles?  I know he looks goofy and all that, but is he some sort of moron?  If not, what real difference would it make if he's king for a few years after Elizabeth kicks it?  Hell, even if he is a moron, does it really matter any more?

He has opinions, which is annoying in a monarch. But maybe he's mellowed in the past 20 years I have no idea.

[Solmyr]

We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.

He won't be Chuck when he is king though. George VII instead.

Heh, the British monarchy is seriously running out of names to use. No more Johns, Henries, or Charleses?

[Agelastus]

We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.

He won't be Chuck when he is king though. George VII instead.

Heh, the British monarchy is seriously running out of names to use. No more Johns, Henries, or Charleses?

Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.

As for Charles, Charles I and II managed to make that name pretty much "persona non grata" for a monarch, albeit for different reasons.

As for Henry...well, I guess it has just dropped out of favour. Although, if you look at the records...

I - left no acceptable heir resulting in a civil war.
II - failed to control his sons resulting in civil war.
III - was weak and governed unwisely, resulting in civil war.
IV - Usurper
V - Managed to blot his copybook by dying before his rival French monarch.
VI - Lost Hundred Years War, weak, went insane resulting in civil war
VII - Usurper (not that that wasn't unusual for that century, but still...)
VIII - "Controversial" to say the least...[do I have to go into detail about the most famous Henry of them all?]

George, by the above standards, is relatively safe.

[Solmyr]

George, by the above standards, is relatively safe.

Only in the 20th century.

[Eddie Teach]

I'd say he should stick with Charles.

[Solmyr]

Or he could just pick Arthur as his regnal name.

[CountDeMoney]

Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.

That's a shame.

[Solmyr]

Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.

That's a shame.

John's rep was blackened by the barons, he was probably a better king than his brother (though that wasn't difficult). He at least managed to secure succession and his grandson later kicked all kinds of arse.

[Josquius]

Its rather annoying how Charles will change his name if he becomes king. It shouldn't be allowed.
I don't want the roll call of future monarchs to be an endless succession of Georges, Williams and Elizabeths.

[Solmyr]

Its rather annoying how Charles will change his name if he becomes king. It shouldn't be allowed.
I don't want the roll call of future monarchs to be an endless succession of Georges, Williams and Elizabeths.

They could throw a Victoria in the mix. Or go to their Norman roots and have some Richards and Roberts.

[Josquius]

I demand an Aethelstan

[sbr]

Why do they take a different regnal name?

[Tonitrus]

Because they like to think of their monarch as their own Pope. 

Though QE2 didn't change her name. 

[Sheilbh]

Why do they take a different regnal name?

Sometimes they want to. Edward VII and George VI were both Alberts.

Charles might not change though.