Friday, February 11, 2005

Charles Philip Arthur George

I was watching Brit Hume on Fox News last night and they spent time talking about Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles getting married in April. Charles Krauthammer's take was basically how silly the whole thing is. They are unimportant people who are famous for being famous. He didn't say that, but that's about what he meant. Anyway, Fox News spent five minutes talking about how much news time and print space is devoted to these people. I guess the news time they were amazed at being spent on the royals included their own time spent talking about people talking about the royals. Or something like that. I think you get my point.

But, Charles and Camilla are getting married. Great. I remember when I was 10 or 11, the TV stations took what seemed like a whole day covering when Charles Philip Arthur George was invested at Caernarfon Castle. Yeah, that's his name. I don't have to look it up on Google or anything. Some British-sounding fellow said his name about a hundred times, it seemed. It was "Charles Philip Arthur George" this and "Charles Philip Arthur George" that and "Charles Philip Arthur George" the other. It got old quick. And "Charles Philip Arthur George" doesn't even include his last name. It used to be Windsor, but now it's Mountbatten-Windsor or something.

Actually, they used to not have last names, but were known by the House of Hanover and then the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Then, one of the Georges (V) decided he didn't want people to know the British were being ruled by a bunch of Germans (they were), especially since they were fighting the Germans in some little unpleasantness called World War I. So he saw the name "Windsor" on the mailbox outside a castle or something, and decided to take that name as the House and as the Family name.

The line of succession used to be just dudes if there was one, even if he wasn't the oldest, and Windsor was the name until the current Queen took over. She married some Greek fellow named Philip who then joined the Royal Navy and took on the name Mountbatten because he lost a bet or something. Anyway, when nobody was looking, somebody signed some piece of paper as "Mountbatten-Windsor" in the 1970s. So, that's now their name: Mountbatten-Windsor.

Remember I said that Charles has enough names to be a Republican President? Well, Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor might still be King one day if his mum kicks off before he does. So, will he be King Charles III? Probably not. Charles I was overthrown and beheaded. And I don't think Al Zarqawi was involved. It was Oliver Cromwell who overthrew the monarchy. Then after he died, they brought back the monarchy. Which shows the value of planning for the future. Anyway, since Charles I was still indisposed (what with not having a head and all), they asked his boy Charles to take over. He did. As Charles II. Anyway, those two Kings Charles were from the House of Stuart.

The Hanovers took over because the Act of Settlement said members of the Church of Rome couldn't reign. That meant that #52, some guy named George, was Heir to the Throne. A similar plot was used by John Goodman in King Ralph. I think that was the plot. Maybe it was something else. Anyway, the House of Hanover became the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha before becoming the House of Windsor.

My point was going to be that Charles, since that name has only been used by Stuarts, might use another name. His grandfather was Prince Albert (not the one in the can) but because they were afraid Victoria would haunt them or something, Prince Albert ruled as King George VI. So, just because he's Prince Charles, he still might be King Something Else.

Charles might be King Philip, but numbering would be a problem. There hasn't been an official King Philip of England, Scotland, or such. Unless you count Philip II of Spain, who was married to England's Queen Mary I. Too much confusion, so that leaves George. That's safe. They've already had six, so he'd probably be George VII.

Personally, I'd like to see him choose Arthur. After all the books, bad Disney cartoons, and Monty Python movies, a real live honest-to-goodness King Arthur. That would be cool. And, if he takes me up on that suggestion, I'd like an honorary title or something. Maybe I'd be Sir Not Appearing In This Blog. That would be cool too.




Posted at Beltway Traffic Jam

8 comments:

  1. Friday Linky Action

    Its Friday! Wahoo! (and yes, we watch the Wiggles!)

    Anyhoo, for your Friday enjoyment:

    ReplyDelete
  2. Prince Charles...as King Arthur?
    NAAAAAAAH!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Albert never ruled, nor was he ever King. Queens' husbands are never King but Kings' wives are usually Queens.

    They plan on making an exception for Charles' wife. She'll be Princess Consort just as Albert was Prince Consort. I'm not sure what Phillip's title is other than Duke of Edinburgh and I'm too lazy and uninterested to look it up.

    Check out the listing at Britannica.

    Interesting thought though. I'm betting that Charles will keep his name should he survive his mother.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are correct. But let me offer this defense. I was not clear about which Prince Albert I was referring. Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert, and

    However, Victoria's great-grandson, brother of Edward VIII, was also known as Prince Albert. When he ascended following Edward's abdication, he reigned as George VI.

    Re-reading it again, I see where it's confusing. But then, that describes just about everything I write.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Big Sister (who's 5'4")February 12, 2005 at 4:29 PM

    It was clear to me. You were talking about Charles (PAG), and said his grandfather, Prince Albert (who would be his mom's dad) ruled as George instead of ruling as Albert. (I think I like calling him Charles PAG.) Of course, we all knew his marriage to Diana would not last since she didn't marry him, but some other guy with the same names but in a different order...
    Actually, I thought at the time it was quite endearing. To have been the center of attention in such a spectacle must have been quite taxing on the nerves. It's a wonder Diana didn't call him Uncle Albert. (We're so sorry.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, but you've got over four decades of following what I say.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Basil, came to this site today for the first time, and absolutely LOVED your article on Charles (PAG). If you taught American/World History or Social Studies or some other subject that I find VERY boring in high school or college, your class would be a hoot! Probably never a dull moment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cynthia:
    I appreciate your stopping by. Don't be a stranger.

    And some tell me it doesn't get any stranger than this. Oh, well.

    Oh, and thanks for the kind words. If only I knew enough about stuff and had the patience to write all those college papers again, I might go for a degree in education. But I won't.

    Anyway, thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Please choose a Profile in "Comment as" or sign your name to Anonymous comments. Comment policy