King Charles III, or something else?

[ThistleDown]

That would be my read, too, Chas, but I think the only ones we can accurately discount are 'Phillip' and 'Arthur' and the rest of it is just guess-work for years to come.

[ThistleDown]

Well, Thomas, first of all there isn't a King of Scotland (and never has been). Up to King James VI there were Kings and Queens of Scots (that is, of the people, not the country). After the merging of the thrones (under James) there have been Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, among many, many more titles. HRH the Duke of Rothesay is also the Prince of Wales and in that capacity is heir to the throne of the United Kingdom.

[Downunder Kilt]

I am new to the Royalty thing , BUt who is King of Scotland Now ?
is HRH the Duke of Rothesay going to be King ?
Thank you

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth ll is the queen of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part. There is not currently a king

[Thomas H]

Thank you I had wondered that bbut was afraid to ask , thank you for the info
When is this all due to happen ?

[Downunder Kilt]

No set time Thomas. Her Majesty either has to abdicate (resign) or pass away before the Charles steps up.

[Thomas H]

Ok Thank you

[Pleater]

If our present queen continues in good health for several more decades it could be that the succession will be to her grandson, William Arthur Philip Louis, or William Wales as he is known. He pilots search and rescue helicopters for the RAF, as he would not be allowed to fly combat missions.

He is descended from two of Charles II's sons on his mothers side, so if anyone was to decide to be known as Charles III it could be him - though the name does carry a lot of - interesting history.

Monarchs are not usually refereed to as 'the first' - particularly when there has not been a second - Queen Victoria, for instance, but it is more common these days.

There are peculiarities due to some monarchs having ruled different kingdoms - Queen Elizabeth (the first) ruled England but not Scotland, but Queen Elizabeth the second rules the united kingdom. By convention the present queen is the second of that name both sides of the border.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[RogerWS76]

I personally favor Arthur. However, I believe the Queen will WILL herself to live until she can pass the crown to Prince William. I could see him choosing Arthur as well. I doubt Philip (Spanish) or Louis(French) would be in vogue. Arthur would be the first of it's names to be used as the famous (mostly mythical) King Arthur has been claimed variously by the Britons, English, Scots and Welsh. However, the name itself when chosen as a first name by English kings for their first sons has had a rather nasty run of bad health!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

My guess would be George VII as well (Charles Phillip Arthur George). Not that it would matter but there have already been a Charles III and IV in the Jacobite Succession. Overall the Stuarts caused all sorts of ruckus for the Brits (Charles I, James II, James the 'Old Pretender', and Bonnie Prince Charlie). I'm willing to bet that the Duke of Rothesay eschews the name Charles for the purpose of reigning.

You left out Henry IX.

[O'Callaghan]

My money is on him being Charles III. He wouldn't care what names might have been used by Jacobite pretenders, and neither do I, because they were never King.

He has Phillip because it's his father's name, of course, but a Spanish king of that name tried to invade us once. We set his ships on fire. I don't think there will be a King Phillip of England any time soon.

He could use George VII, but I doubt it. He is a grown man and goes by Charles, so why change now?

King Arthur is appealing, but the name has too many legends to live up to.

The papers have wittered on about bypassing Charles, but he has no intention of letting that happen, so it won't, unless he is unlucky enough to predecease his mother.