Queen Elizabeth II died today at Balmoral
(www.bbc.co.uk)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (98)
sorted by:
If he gets coronated under that name, he's doing it purely for ego.
Charles I was overthrown by Cromwell
Charles II overthrew Cromwell only to be a philandering sex pest with 12 illegitimate children - and those are just the ones he admitted to.
He definitely shouldn't want to be be compared to either of those.
He has the middle name(s) Philip Arthur George, so he may choose to be coronated under one of those.
Having him be coronated as King Arthur would definitely be more interesting for sure.
It would indeed, but that's far too humorous for the crown.
If he goes by another name, I predict George, as George V and VI were both loved.
The meme potential would be off the charts.
Seeing some of the reports and articles online, seems they're all running with 'King Charles III'
I mean if he copies any of the past Charles it'd be an improvement, go to war with Parliament (I'd want a front row seat to that) or bringing back Christmas!
If Charles went to war against parliament I'd probably 180 my opinion on him overnight.
Day 1: Coronation
Day 2: Declare War
Day 3: Abdicate
Wouldn't even be mad.
He'd still be a jug eared berk, just imagine the king who talks to plants with total power.
I guess we'll see what Scotland has to say, if anything, about that "Charles III" business.
Probably similar things that were said about Elizabeth II given Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scotland what with the whole Mary Queen of Scots snafu going on at the time.
Bring back Christmas? We never lost it to begin with.
It’s just been confirmed - King Charles III.
Admittedly, he hasn’t been officially coronated as such, but I very much doubt that changes now, lol…
Modern population is too stupid to follow any tradition of renaming upon coroonation.
Every time a new story happened it would go
"Today King George VII, formerly Prince Charles [because you're all too stupid to follow this], pointed with his enormous sausage fingers at some poor people and laughed."
It wouldn't, as that's the protocol.
Cromwell (at least Oliver) was dead by the time Charles II came to England - by invitation, not by overthrowing him.
George isn't exactly an auspicious name either. And there's never been a Philip or Arthur AFAIK.
There’s never been an Arthur since 1066, yes…
But if we’re talking Anglo-Saxon..?
Pretty sure there’s at least one or two with the Olde English version of that name, not just in fiction, though I could be wrong, lol…
I thought there wasn't any before either. Unless we count Ambrosius Aurelianus. Why would Anglo-Saxons name themselves after a mythical ruler who fought against them?
Yeah, you have a point there, I guess…
Though I thought Arthurian “legend” didn’t really settle until the early Medieval period, no..?
We really don’t know that much before Malory, do we, re Arthur..??
That was my impression, at least…
Unlike, say, the actual Macbeth…
REGIS QUONDAM REGISQUE FUTURI
No, he can't be King Arthur.