Saturday September 10, King Charles III was proclaimed. He accesses the royal function after more than sixty-four years as a prince of Wales. A few hours after the announcement of the death of the queen, doubt persisted on the name that the new sovereign would choose: Georges VII, in tribute to his maternal grandfather, Charles III or another name still? It will therefore be Charles III.
Since this decision, commentators have not extended little over this choice. However, it arouses several questions in the minds of those who know the history of the United Kingdom. By choosing to keep his first name as a name for reign, the new king follows the example of his mother, born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, who had found it natural to keep her first name, but he moves away from that of his grandfather, Born Alexander, who became king under the name of George VI. Let us also remember that Edouard VIII was well called Edward but that he was known in private under the name of David, and that his own grandfather Edouard VII had as first name Albert, but that he was more commonly called “Bertie “In order not to confuse him with his father, husband of Queen Victoria.
The upset destinies of the Charles
We see it, the choice of a name for a monarch is not trivial. Charles’ situation is not comparable to that of his mother. For a future British sovereign, the first name Elizabeth refers to a historical period considered to be a splendor: the English Renaissance, the time of Shakespeare, the moment of the invincible Armada.
The name of Charles, on the other hand, immediately refers to two predecessors to upset destinies. Charles Stuart, first of the name, was executed for betrayal during the civil war between the proponents of the Parliament and those of the Crown, in 1649, and led to the abolition of the monarchical institution during the period of Oliver Cromwell. In this murderous spiral of the first half of the eighteenth e century, Charles i er carries a heavy part of responsibility.
Charles II, his son, was the first king of catering in 1660, after the death of Cromwell. However, his reign is not necessarily perceived in a flattering way as the character, fickle and good alive, has left a poor image of his government. It was during his reign that the Londoners had to suffer the black plague of 1665 and the great fire of London of 1666. Death without legitimate heir, he left the throne to his younger brother James (the future Jacques II), Catholic obedience in a Protestant country, which, which became king in turn in 1685, was forced to abandon his kingdom at the time of the “glorious revolution” of 1688. Thus, refer to such models can surprise, especially since This period of British history saw the extent of royal power to restrict itself considerably.
You have 40.17% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.