Prince Charles - Post Wedding

[kilt by death]

I am afraid that the Monarchy will fall if, or before Charles III ascends the throne.

Technically, he would be Charles I, of Britain. Charles I and II were kings of England!!

[beerbecue]

As a mere observer of the British monarchy, the majority of my knowledge coming from the History Channel, I am not sure why this particular episode of infidelity is such a stain on the royal family as opposed to any other in British history. Or for that matter, that infidelity is the greatest sin that has ever been perpetrated by a member of the royal family.

Murder, divorce, war, and adultery are common in the history of the British royals. So if one were to argue that the current heir to the throne should abdicate due to his lack of moral character, then to take the argument to the logical, albeit extreme, conclusion, the whole darn thing should be chucked (no pun intended).

[Casey]

As a mere observer of the British monarchy, the majority of my knowledge coming from the History Channel, I am not sure why this particular episode of infidelity is such a stain on the royal family as opposed to any other in British history. Or for that matter, that infidelity is the greatest sin that has ever been perpetrated by a member of the royal family.

Murder, divorce, war, and adultery are common in the history of the British royals. So if one were to argue that the current heir to the throne should abdicate due to his lack of moral character, then to take the argument to the logical, albeit extreme, conclusion, the whole darn thing should be chucked (no pun intended).

The media!

[Doc Hudson]

The media!

My point exactly!

The media has made so much of Prince Charles' problems, they've muddied the whole Monarchy.

[macwilkin]

Technically, he would be Charles I, of Britain. Charles I and II were kings of England!!

I'm not so sure about this statement. Remember that Charles I's father, James I, was originally James VI of Scotland before the throne passed to him after the death of Elizabeth I. Charles I attempted to force the English prayer book and the Episcopal form of church government on the Scots, which led to the Bishops Wars of 1637-38, and indirectly to the Civil War, as Charles I needed money to fight the Scots (who were not rebelling against the King, but for their rights to worship as they saw fit). Charles II, his son, was crowned as King at Scone in 1650 after returning from exile in Europe during Cromwell's dictatorship. Both monarchs named Charles were members of the Stuart family, and the Stuarts shared the thrones of England & Scotland until the Act of Union between the two nations in 1707.

So, yes, Charles would be Charles III, although his mother is technically Elizabeth I of Scotland.

Cheers,

Todd

[philibeg]

Yes, Todd, I believe your are correct on that, ood as it is....

[Doc Hudson]

I am afraid that the Monarchy will fall if, or before Charles III ascends the throne.

Technically, he would be Charles I, of Britain. Charles I and II were kings of England!!

Using that logic, Prince Charles' mother would be not Elizabeth II but Elizabeth I, since that other Elizabeth was Queen of England and Wales only. And his great Uncle should have been Edward II rather than Edward VII.

If Prince Charles ascends the throne, and uses the name Charles rather than one of his other names, I'm reasonably sure that he will be Charles III.

BTW, as the son and grandson of James VII of Scotland, aka James I of England, Charles I and II were also Kings of Scotland. And I believe both were officially crowned as such.

[highlander_Daz]

Its a tradition in Scotland to discount pre 1707 monarchs when working out the numbers, lizzie is lizzie the second of Britain, and Lizzie the first of scotland, and I thinik Charles will go for Henry or maybe even Philip when and if he becomes King, personally I think the queen will outlive him.

[kilt by death]

Its a tradition in Scotland to discount pre 1707 monarchs when working out the numbers,