What’s in a regnal name? The UK’s new king takes the throne
September 17, 2022 1 Comment

I’m sure that by now you have seen the headlines – Elizabeth II, the second-longest-reigning monarch in human history – has passed away. Her 70-year, 214-day reign was almost seven years longer than that of Queen Victoria, her great-great-grandmother. Having taken the throne in 1952, she was a living symbol of the United Kingdom for many around the world for their whole lives, myself included. Now, her son, whom I spent my entire life calling “Prince Charles”, has succeeded to the throne as King Charles III.
Many were shocked that he took the name “Charles III”. It was widely speculated for decades that he would choose to be called George VII instead.
Wait, what? Isn’t Charles his name? Why would he be called George?
Well, when a person takes the throne as a monarch, he or she doesn’t HAVE to keep the same name. It is actually quite common for monarchs to take a different name upon their succession, called a “regnal name”. Among previous British monarchs, Queen Victoria was originally named Alexandrina, Edward VIII was called “David” by his family, and George VI was named Albert. This is why British royals are born with so many names, as it gives them a choice for how they want to be called. The new king was named “Charles Philip Arthur George” when he was born.
The reason that many people were convinced that the new king would want to be called George was because of British royal history. There have been many popular and beloved British kings named “George”, including the new king’s grandfather, who reigned during World War II. As for the two previous kings named Charles, well…
The King who was Beheaded
The first British monarch named Charles was the son of King James VI of Scotland. When Charles was three years old, his father was proclaimed King James I of England, uniting the British Isles under his rule. James was chosen by the English Parliament because he was a Protestant; however, the versions of Protestantism in Scotland and England were quite different. Scotland preferred Presbyterianism, while their neighbors to the south famously established the Church of England during the reign of King Henry VIII, and his granddaughter, Queen Elizabeth I, transformed it into a moderately Protestant church that retained many Catholic traditions. King James had to balance the competing religious demands of his English and Scottish subjects. While this was a delicate job, James mostly succeeded, and gave us the King James Version of the Bible in the process.
Charles did not inherit his father’s tact. A man who preferred the ancient traditions and rituals of the church, he attempted to impose Anglican-style worship in Scotland. He also married a Catholic wife. Not only did he court controversy in religious matters, he also proved to be a tyrannical dictator.
Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, English monarchs had been constitutional monarchs, whose power was limited by centuries of laws, customs, and traditions. Parliament was and is the lawmaking body of the realm, drafting the legislation that takes effect when it receives the Royal Assent. Also, the ministers who take care of the day-to-day running of the government, while technically chosen by the monarch, have to have the “confidence” of Parliament to get and to keep their jobs. Charles rejected all of this, arguing that God had chosen him to rule, and that all his subjects had to simply obey him. For 11 years, Charles didn’t call any Parliament at all and chose to rule by decree as the absolute monarchs of continental Europe at the time did.
Unsurprisingly, his subjects rebelled. Scottish rebels rose up against the king’s religious impositions. To suppress the Scottish rebellion, Charles needed to raise taxes, and only Parliament can do that. When Parliament refused to do so until the king made political concessions, he attempted to arrest five of its members while they were in session. This led Parliament to lead a rebellion of its own. The civil war ended with King Charles I arrested, tried for treason by Parliament, and executed on his own palace’s grounds.
The Embattled Philanderer
The second British monarch to have been named Charles was the oldest son of the first. Born in 1630, he was still a young boy when his father’s rule sparked rebellion and civil war. Upon his father’s execution, he was proclaimed King of Scotland by the Scottish Parliament, who were enraged at not having been consulted by their English counterparts about this. The young king made a deal with his Scottish subjects whereby he would accept their Presbyterian faith. The arrangement didn’t last, as England invaded and successfully conquered Scotland. Charles fled into exile, and spent the next nine years of his life doing the European royal equivalent of couch-surfing.
His fortunes changed with the political winds back home. By 1660, the regime that had killed his father and driven him out had collapsed. He was recalled back to England, and arrived in London on his 30th birthday to cheering crowds who proclaimed him King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland.
However, it was very clear from the outset that Charles’s power was going to be restricted by a Parliament that, while now filled with people who would be more compliant, still distrusted royal authority. They refused to allow their king to adopt a policy of freedom of religion, for example. It didn’t help that the king was always spending far beyond his means to both live a life of luxury and give out money over-generously. He also kept multiple mistresses and fathered as many as 14 illegitimate children, while his own wife never bore him a legitimate heir.
His reign was quite tumultuous. Much of London burned in a massive fire in 1666. Scottish Presbyterians, feeling betrayed by this king who went back on his oaths to them and reintroduced his father’s Catholic-flavored Anglicanism, rebelled against him twice. He lost a war with the Netherlands, leading to him concluding a controversial alliance with France. When his brother and heir, James, Duke of York, became a Catholic, Parliament tried to block him from taking the throne. This led to Charles II copying his father and dissolving Parliament in 1681, choosing to rule by decree. While some feared this would lead to yet another civil war, the king’s opponents backed down rather than risk a bloody conflict. Charles II would retain his absolute rule for the remaining few years of his life.
A Modern Monarch
Now, there are many, many things that have changed in the last 337 years. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the reign that’s beginning in 2022 will look anything like the ones that ended in 1649 or 1685. For starters, King Charles III is a very different man than the two previous British monarchs with that name.
Born in Buckingham Palace in 1948, Charles was a Baby Boomer who grew up in a time when many modern technologies we take for granted today were first becoming available. In keeping with the modern sensibilities of the day, his mother, even though she was the Queen, decided to break centuries of tradition when raising him. Rather than having a private tutor teach him in the palace, little Prince Charles would be going to school like any other British boy. Well, not like ANY British boy; of course he attended schools that served upper-class children. He also spent two years as an exchange student in Australia.
In 1969, his mother officially made him Prince of Wales, a title traditionally given to the heir to the throne. However, it was more than a mere title to him, as the prince made an effort to learn how to speak Welsh. He also spent several years serving in the Royal Navy, first as a helicopter pilot, then as the captain of a small mine-hunting ship. Famously, he married Princess Diana in 1981. Though Diana was a beloved figure around the world, and took care that her two royal boys had as normal of an upbringing as was reasonably possible, Charles never wanted to marry her, and carried on an affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles. Naturally, this led to their divorce in 1996. Diana was tragically killed in a car accident the following year. Eventually, Charles would marry Camilla in 2005, and upon his ascension to the throne, she has taken the title “Queen Consort”, the traditional title of the king’s wife.
As Prince of Wales, Charles lived a life performing numerous royal duties in support of his mother. He was patron of numerous British charities, particularly Welsh charities. He would go on tours across the UK and the other Commonwealth realms. He was a patron of the arts, an advocate for British veterans, and a supporter of various environmental causes. In between all of these things, he was also an entrepreneur; he took the landed estates that were part of his royal inheritance and turned them into an organic farm business that partners with British grocery store chain Waitrose, with all profits from every sale donated to charity.
What will the new king do?
It seems to me that many Americans don’t really understand the role of the British monarchy. We either treat the royals like we do any other celebrity, or we try to understand their role by comparing it to our own political system. Nether of these attitudes does justice to the actual position the monarch has in British politics and culture.
To better understand the British monarch’s role, you first have to understand that God put him or her in charge. That’s the legal understanding that has been long established in British constitutional theory, dating back to the middle ages, and expressed by British coins bearing the monarch’s portrait alongside the words “Dei Gratia Rex” or “Dei Gratia Regina” (King or Queen by the grace of God). That’s also why, to this day, the reigning king is also the leader of the Church of England, and every member of Parliament, soldier, police officer, judge, Anglican priest, and many more must swear a personal oath of loyalty to the king. Not to a nation, not to a constitution, but to a person.
King Charles III is now commander-in-chief of the British military and has the sole power to declare war, appoint the Prime Minister and other top government jobs, decide when Parliament convenes and when elections are held. No bill passed by Parliament becomes a law without his consent, and he is himself immune from prosecution from any crimes (since they are his laws, and he is the source of all justice). Also, he now owns all the swans, dolphins, and whales in the United Kingdom and its waters. Yes, really.
Yet, as we’ve already established, when a monarch tries to exercise too much power and becomes a tyrant, bad things can happen. That’s why monarchs have exercised restraint for centuries, allowing the elected representatives of the people to exercise political power in their name. As one website puts it, “the [King] reigns, but does not rule.”
The new king could theoretically choose whomever he wants as Prime Minister, but as Parliament can remove a PM they don’t like, he will most likely always stick to the tradition of picking the leader of the political party with the most seats in the House of Commons. He will also most likely continue the tradition of always following the PM’s advice when naming people to the other important government jobs. Indeed, for nearly two centuries, British monarchs have never exercised their theoretically immense powers in any way contrary to what the democratically-elected officials responsible to British voters want. This arrangement is called the “royal prerogative”, whereby the monarch is the one who officially makes the final decision, but only based on the “advice” of his or her ministers. Indeed, being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom means that you meet with your boss daily, and you tell him what to do, not the other way around.
The monarch must be seen as non-partisan and above the bickering of the politicians. This is because he or she is a symbol of the nation, something like a living flag. When the monarch is speaking, he or she is speaking on behalf of the entire nation. This allows for a sense of continuity and stability that you won’t see in a political system like ours in the United States, where our nation’s leader is a politician who can be incredibly controversial and despised by half the country. It also allows the British to preserve a tradition that dates back to their earliest origins while still adapting to modern times and democratic values.
So, as the British people and the world mourn the passing of an iconic queen who touched so many lives through her calm and dignified example of what “majesty” can mean, we can all now hopefully appreciate what they mean when they say:
LONG LIVE THE KING!