Will Charles be king?

[Agelastus]

George, by the above standards, is relatively safe.

Only in the 20th century.

I - couldn't speak English
II - Let Walpole run the country
III - insane and lost the Thirteen Colonies (no civil war or revolution though.)
IV - wastrel (but actually politically astute, so so what?)

No, nowhere near as troublesome a legacy as that associated with the name "Henry".

[Agelastus]

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.

I love the military historians who try to argue that he was the greatest strategist of the era despite the fact that his strategy first lost north-western France and then failed to retake it!

Actually, given the general lack of historical knowledge among the average Briton, probably the real issue with reusing his name these days is his association with the legend of Robin Hood.

[Agelastus]

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.

I thought Charles has actually said he will, or at least has floated the idea with a carefully leaked letter?

[Martinus]

Could easily be wrong of course, the position of Pope seems to have just become another job in recent years; could well happen to the British monarchy.

True. But it still seems more or less inconceivable with the Queen.

Why? The Queen of the Netherlands has recently abdicated. Why would the Queen of The UK be different?

[celedhring]

Ours did, too.

Probably QE2 thinks it's unseemly. A king dies on the job.

[Martinus]

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 holds a number of rather unorthodox views and has been rumoured to voice them in letters trying to put pressure on the government, I understand.

It is a stark contrast to E2 who has been very careful not to express her views, especially on divisive or controversial matters.

[Martinus]

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.

If going insane and/or starting a civil war is anything to go by, I can't see how George is safer than Henry. I think only William holds up.

[celedhring]

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 holds a number of rather unorthodox views and has been rumoured to voice them in letters trying to put pressure on the government, I understand.

It is a stark contrast to E2 who has been very careful not to express her views, especially on divisive or controversial matters.

Which views? You made me curious.

[Martinus]

III - insane and lost the Thirteen Colonies (no civil war or revolution though.)

[Tonitrus]

If going insane and/or starting a civil war is anything to go by, I can't see how George is safer than Henry. I think only William holds up.

Tainted by Mel Gibson and William Wallace. 

[Martinus]

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 holds a number of rather unorthodox views and has been rumoured to voice them in letters trying to put pressure on the government, I understand.

It is a stark contrast to E2 who has been very careful not to express her views, especially on divisive or controversial matters.

Which views? You made me curious.

Well, the British media seem quite circumspect on it - I suppose the mere meddling is already a scandal. But one view he holds is a belief in homeopathy apparently. And allegedly there is more.

[Martinus]

Like this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11305882/Prince-Charles-reclaim-the-streets-from-cars.html

[Martinus]

Or his belief that overpopulation should be dealt with by any means necessary and, when asked what animal he would like to be, he answered "a deadly virus".

He just seems erratic, in a creepy way.

[Agelastus]

III - insane and lost the Thirteen Colonies (no civil war or revolution though.)

I very nearly did write that the loss of the Thirteen Colonies could be classed as a civil war, then thought better of it.

Given the British governmental form survived throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars relatively unchanged while he was King (albeit he had a regent for a chunk of the period) and there was no fighting on mainland Britain I don't think it's fair to class him with the large numbers of Henrys who ended up fighting civil wars in their homelands.

[Agelastus]

Or this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11305882/Prince-Charles-reclaim-the-streets-from-cars.html

He's not allowed to talk about politics so he expresses his views on architecture; so what? An interest in architecture is something of a Royal Tradition, after all.

He's been doing it since 1984 anyway, so it's both old news and not a sign of being erratic.

Have you read his "ten points" in full?

http://www.dezeen.com/2014/12/21/prince-charles-reveals-10-principles-for-more-mature-view-of-urban-design/