First paragraph: On the day of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, the former Prince of Wales was proclaimed King Charles III. Although it’s been known for decades that Charles would succeed his mother, there were rumours that he might, once king, choose the name George due to the contentious legacies of Kings Charles I and Charles II.https://theconversation.com/charles-iii-the-difficult-legacy-and-political-significance-of-the-new-kings-name-19038

Cunningham, Calum Edward

Filet, Jérémy

Stirling Online Research Repository

Academic rigour, journalistic flairCalum CunninghamPhD Candidate, University of StirlingJérémy FiletLecturer in the department of Languages, Information and Communication, Manchester Metropolitan UniversityOn the day of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, the former Prince of Wales was proclaimed King Charles III.Although it’s been known for decades that Charles would succeed his mother, there were rumoursthat he might, once king, choose the name George due to the contentious legacies of Kings Charles Iand Charles II.At a time of political and constitutional uncertainty, Elizabeth II’s choice to name her son Charles issignificant in understanding the monarchy’s vision for the future of the United Kingdom.Charles I: a tyrant?Naming another monarch “Charles” would make most historians cringe. The current king’s full nameis Charles Philip Arthur George and he could have chosen any of those names for his official royaldesignation.Neil Hall/EPACharles III: the difficult legacy and political significance of thenew king’s namePublished: September 13, 2022 4.37pm BSTYet he’s kept the name with two namesake predecessors from the House of Stuart, who arguably livedthrough some of the most tumultuous days of the now British monarchy (so far).Charles I was born at Dunfermline Palace, Scotland, in 1600 and ascended the thrones of the threekingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1625. From the start of his reign, the parliaments ofEngland and Scotland demanded more power.But Charles was a believer in the divine right of kings and felt he had been given absolute monarchicalpower by God alone and could not be held accountable to parliament.He’s been described as a man of small stature with a stammer and a strong Scots accent, which didnot work in his favour. Charles married the Bourbon princess Henrietta Maria, who was French and aCatholic.It was a major issue for the protestant king, who was supposed to be the head of the Church ofEngland, as were his attempts at religious reform that led to the the wars of the three kingdoms,which included the English civil war.In the end, Charles I refused to create a constitutional monarchy (putting parliament rather than themonarch in control) and was convicted of high treason in 1649. He was executed in front of theBanqueting House in London, which became a symbol of the fall of the monarchy.Charles II: a flighty king?Charles I, represented as receiving his royal prerogatives from God (on the left) and the Crown (on the right), in EikonBasilike (1649).His son, Charles II, became a refugee in 1648 and spent considerable time in the SpanishNetherlands, the Dutch Republic and France. While Charles II was in exile, he received financialsupport and free accommodation at the court of King Louis XIV.Upon his restoration to the throne, Charles II became a patron of the arts and sciences and was a popular king. But he proved to be neither an effective statesman nor a great military leader, and failedto resolve the country’s religious divisions. His scandalous affairs did nothing for his reputation as the“merry monarch”.Fate was cruel to him as well. Charles II had to rule through the 1665 Great Plague and the 1666 Great Fire of London. Overall, the name Charles is not associated with the best of times for the monarchy.‘Charles III’: the Stuart pretenderCharles II - The Merry Monarch? by Cecil Doughty (1972). Charles II is shown here dancing with his favourite actress, NellGwyn.There has already been a King Charles III, depending on whom you talk to.In 1688, Charles II’s brother, the Catholic King James II of England and VII of Scotland, was deposedin a revolution. But his descendants, and their supporters known as the Jacobites, maintained theirright to the throne.James’s grandson, Charles Edward Stuart, popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, led theunsuccessful Jacobite rising of 1745-6. He eventually adopted the title of Charles III, although it wasnever acknowledged officially in Great Britain or even by Catholic European leaders.Charles III: king of a divided kingdomCharles Edward Stuart styled as King Charles III by Laurent Pécheux (1770). The crown behind him represents his claimsto rightful sovereignty.The Jacobite succession has continued to be recognised, particularly in Scotland, by neo-Jacobitesand legitimist organisations, including the Royal Stuart Society, founded in 1926. Some, therefore,may consider the new king’s choice disrespectful to the memory of the exiled Stuarts.Reigning as King George VII could have honoured Charles’s grandfather and great-grandfather, KingsGeorge VI and George V. Choosing to forgo this title in favour of Charles III suggests possible politicaland somewhat controversial undertones.By the 19th century, Jacobitism came to be viewed as a lost and romantic cause. Queen Victoria, adescendant of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, wrote in her journal that “Stuart blood isin my veins”.Elizabeth II, like Victoria, had a well known love of Scotland. The recent Queen’s choice of forenamefor her son and heir may have been a personal one to honour her mother, whose Scottish family haseven closer ties to the Stuarts.King Charles III and Queen Consort Camilla outside Buckingham Palace looking at the floral tributes left for QueenElizabeth II. Martin Dalton/AlamyThe new king wearing the Prince Charles Edward Stuart tartan and white heather from Balmoral during the vigil forElizabeth II at St Giles’ Cathedral. Sky NewsConversely, this decision could be a calculated move by the British monarchy to reconcile the memoryof the Stuarts with the legitimacy of the current House of Windsor.The rise of Scottish nationalism has raised questions about the cohesion of the United Kingdom. Thedeath of the Queen may spur supporters of a second referendum on Scottish independence.The choice of the monarchy to call on the royal title of the most well-known Jacobite pretender can beread as an attempt to evoke the last fully Scottish royal family, and emphasise the King’s legitimacy assovereign of all parts of the United Kingdom.

Charles III: the difficult legacy and political significance of the new king’s name

First paragraph: On the day of Queen Elizabeth II’s death, the former Prince of Wales was proclaimed King Charles III. Although it’s been known for decades that Charles would succeed his mother, there were rumours that he might, once king, choose the name George due to the contentious legacies of Kings Charles I and Charles II

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)

https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/retrieve/afe32cbc-a83e-4a86-a856-f151bf50577b/Cunninngham-Conversation-2022.pdf

Charles III: the difficult legacy and political significance of the new king’s name

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Stirling Online Research Repository

Stirling Online Research Repository (RIOXX)