Buckingham Palace - what's going on?

TragicMonkey said:
"In a surprise move, Queen Elizabeth II abdicated today in favor of an American whose internet posts she enjoyed. He's taking the throne in the name of King Max Plus One, which seemed silly until people realized the alternatives the new monarch considered were King TragicMonkey, King Kingy I, or King You Feel The Magic I Can Feel The Magic Let's Feel The Magic Tonite."
Click to expand...
You should ask the British public to vote for your name, then you could be King Kingy McKingface.

Actually I wouldn't put it past Charles to do that.
 
Last edited:
Klimax said:
It's actually quite logical to use max()+1, because it avoids confusion which ruler is being referenced. Similar situation arose in Bohemian kingdom where king Charles the Fourth has such number because he was also ruler of Holy Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
Not quite so. The other Charleses who ruled Bohemia as king are listed as Charles II (i.e., Charles VI as Emperor of the HRE) and Charles III (i.e., Charles I as Emperor of Austria). He's also listed as Charles I of Luxembourg.

ETA: and the Czech wiki page says
Charles IV. (14 May 1316, Prague - 29 November 1378, Prague) was eleventh Czech king, ruling as Charles I from August 1346 until his death in November 1378.
Click to expand...
according to Google Translate.
 
Last edited:
William of Orange was William III of England, but William II of Scotland. That was before the union of Parliaments however. The case of Bohemia and HRE is more interesting, as Bohemia was part of HRE. But separate kingdoms and other political entities existed within the HRE. Unlike Great Britain it never coalesced into a single state, and remained a loose federation.
 
ddt said:
Not quite so. The other Charleses who ruled Bohemia as king are listed as Charles II (i.e., Charles VI as Emperor of the HRE) and Charles III (i.e., Charles I as Emperor of Austria). He's also listed as Charles I of Luxembourg.

ETA: and the Czech wiki page says

according to Google Translate.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I don't remember from History lessons that dichotomy of names. (and teacher was quite thorough - usually in 45 minute lesson notes were 2-4 A4 long) He is always known as Charles IV here. That dichotomy would then explain Charles II.
 
Craig B said:
What will his regnal number in fact be? He's Charles III of England, and Charles III of Scotland, but the last Charles reigned before Great Britain or the UK existed, so he should be Charles I of the UK. Bad omen.
Click to expand...

That's assuming he doesn't choose another name entirely.
 
Damien Evans said:
That's assuming he doesn't choose another name entirely.
Click to expand...
Since the union there have been three names used by kings of GB/UK: George, William and Edward.

All the Georges have been subsequent to the union; therefore the regnal number problem doesn't arise. But it does in the other two cases. So to avoid the issue, Charles will have to be George, or adopt a name never used by a British monarch before, as Pope Francis did for his Pontificate.
 
Craig B said:
William of Orange was William III of England, but William II of Scotland. That was before the union of Parliaments however. The case of Bohemia and HRE is more interesting, as Bohemia was part of HRE. But separate kingdoms and other political entities existed within the HRE. Unlike Great Britain it never coalesced into a single state, and remained a loose confederation.
Click to expand...
FTFY. ;)

Klimax said:
Interesting. I don't remember from History lessons that dichotomy of names. (and teacher was quite thorough - usually in 45 minute lesson notes were 2-4 A4 long) He is always known as Charles IV here. That dichotomy would then explain Charles II.
Click to expand...
In an imperfect analogy: Charles V, HRE Emperor, is in Dutch history also always referred to as Charles V. Not as Charles I of Aragon, Charles I of Castille or Charles I of Spain. And neither, more importantly, as Charles I count of Holland, Charles III count of Flanders, Charles II duke of Brabant, Charles III duke of Guelders, etc., nor as Charles I (?) lord of the Netherlands (a shorthand that was invented along the line when the Burgundian dukes turned out to be serious in collecting fiefs in the Low Countries).
 
Craig B said:
Since the union there have been three names used by kings of GB/UK: George, William and Edward.

All the Georges have been subsequent to the union; therefore the regnal number problem doesn't arise. But it does in the other two cases. So to avoid the issue, Charles will have to be George, or adopt a name never used by a British monarch before, as Pope Francis did for his Pontificate.
Click to expand...
Edward VIII and William IV were post-Union, and took max+1 as a number.

I think it's accepted that if Charles were to be to called Charles he'd be Charles III. Acknowledging the monarchs of both England and Scotland pre-union seems the best way to me - so max +1. Charles would be III and a James would be VIII, assuming the Jacobite Pretenders/Claimants aren't counted due to never having been crowned.
 
Last edited:
Agatha said:
Edward VIII and William IV were post-Union, and took max+1 as a number.

I think it's accepted that if Charles were to be to called Charles he'd be Charles III. Acknowledging the monarchs of both England and Scotland pre-union seems the best way to me - so max +1. Charles would be III and a James would be VIII, assuming the Jacobite Pretenders/Claimants aren't counted due to never having been crowned.
Click to expand...
The question is whether Max+1 is in fact acknowledged and applied, or if it was simply made up by Churchill to mollify Scottish opinion in 1953. If it is the established principle, and given that the regnal numeration of monarchs is important enough to require specific legal warrant, one must expect that this principle has been set down somewhere. So where is it? If it can be found, good. But up to now it has operated (in practice) as if only English regnal numbers were in the equation; no Alexander IV or David III (or Lulach II) or any other royal name previously peculiar to Scotland, or where (as with James) the max+1 formula would produce a Scottish regnal number, has been used by a British monarch.

ETA I don't know if being crowned is the criterion. Edward VIII was not crowned, but I think he has used up his number as an acknowledged king. He required to abdicate, for example, so he must have been, if only temporarily, the monarch, and the next Edward will be number IX, one imagines.

In the case of Edward VII there were protests in Scotland at the use of this regnal number. Here is one, reported in a NZ newspaper. Notice that the Max+1 principle is not invoked in the reply received by the protesters, although it would have been very relevant. All the protestors are told is that "his majesty has not been pleased to signify any commands thereon". Did his majesty know anything about Max+1?
 
Last edited:
Why go to the effort of trying to avoid controversy? Do the opposite and create more! That will really help sell the coronation souvenirs. I suggest Charles take the throne under the name of King Jesus Christ II. That should spark some interest. Particularly if Camilla becomes Queen Mary Magdalene II.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Why go to the effort of trying to avoid controversy? Do the opposite and create more! That will really help sell the coronation souvenirs. I suggest Charles take the throne under the name of King Jesus Christ II. That should spark some interest. Particularly if Camilla becomes Queen Mary Magdalene II.
Click to expand...
I don't think these names and numbers fit into the Max+1 formula.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Why go to the effort of trying to avoid controversy? Do the opposite and create more! That will really help sell the coronation souvenirs. I suggest Charles take the throne under the name of King Jesus Christ II. That should spark some interest. Particularly if Camilla becomes Queen Mary Magdalene II.
Click to expand...

I object to you traditionalists trying to push the monarchy back into the 1st Century when we should be trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st. Why can't the monarchy revitalise itself and become self-supporting by embracing commercial sponsorship like so many other titles in modern day life? If football stadiums and cycling teams can be named after major corporations or products, why not kings? The problem of regnal numbers would be solved quite trivially. I, for one, will not be satisfied until the United Kingdom is ruled by King Panasonic Viera TX-58DX902B 58 Inch 4K HDR Ultra HD Smart 3D LED TV.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I object to you traditionalists trying to push the monarchy back into the 1st Century when we should be trying to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st. Why can't the monarchy revitalise itself and become self-supporting by embracing commercial sponsorship like so many other titles in modern day life? If football stadiums and cycling teams can be named after major corporations or products, why not kings? The problem of regnal numbers would be solved quite trivially. I, for one, will not be satisfied until the United Kingdom is ruled by King Panasonic Viera TX-58DX902B 58 Inch 4K HDR Ultra HD Smart 3D LED TV.
Click to expand...

That's shortsighted of you, tying the entire reign to just one product! With my system, the monarch can add his royal endorsement to many, many products and services! Imagine how much more impressive it would be to purchase the same brand of milk used by His Majesty, Jesus Christ? "Kikkoman Soy Sauce is what Jesus Christ uses in the palace!" "King Jesus only drinks Dr Pepper!" "I only buy LuvBumps brand anal beads because that's what King Jesus advises!"
 
TragicMonkey said:
That's shortsighted of you, tying the entire reign to just one product! With my system, the monarch can add his royal endorsement to many, many products and services! Imagine how much more impressive it would be to purchase the same brand of milk used by His Majesty, Jesus Christ? "Kikkoman Soy Sauce is what Jesus Christ uses in the palace!" "King Jesus only drinks Dr Pepper!" "I only buy LuvBumps brand anal beads because that's what King Jesus advises!"
Click to expand...

This is not, in fact, a novel idea, or even one that hasn't been in use for a long time.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is not, in fact, a novel idea, or even one that hasn't been in use for a long time.

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Hyacinth Bucket only buys the most exclusive products with the Royal Warrant on them. The novelty is having said endorsement upgraded by being supplied by King Jesus Christ rather than another one of a series of boring old Charleses.

Which would you rather purchase: an inflatable dragon sex doll endorsed by King Charles III or IV or XIII or whatever, or a working jetpack endorsed by King Jesus Christ II?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom