Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Did Charles Stuart ever indicate he thought of himself that way or was that solely an attempt by Whigs to discredit the idea of him being royalty (to bring him down to the level of everyone else, so to speak)?
History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
SeekTruthFromFacts
King
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 667
Technically incorrect according to PRC government policy. They classify Han-like Muslims as Hui, a separate ethnic group. I've met quite a few Hui, but I've never met or heard of one that disagrees with the idea that Hui are separate from Han. The Hui I've met have either strongly affirmed or strongly denied the idea that you can by Hui but not Muslim.
According to Wikipedia, the official style of Charles I as king was "Charles, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc." The authors of his death warrant referred to him as "Charles Stuart, King of England". That would rather imply (understandably so) that the Parliamentarians wanted to stress that he was simply a normal man (with a surname) who happened to be king, rather than anything else.
Then again, Henry VIII's style at the time of his death was "Henry the Eighth, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith and of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head", so even then English monarchs didn't include their dynastic names in their royal styles.
Then again, Henry VIII's style at the time of his death was "Henry the Eighth, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith and of the Church of England and also of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head", so even then English monarchs didn't include their dynastic names in their royal styles.
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
I'm unfamiliar with exact PRC ethnic terminology. I used Han to specify that the Muslims of Yunnan and their kin in Burma and Thailand are ethnically Chinese, not a Turkic, (such as Uyghur) or Tibetan minority group. If Hui is the correct term for Chinese Muslims, I stand corrected.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Still, that itself implies that his family name was known. It may not have been applied to the king personally, but it was understood that his family had a name, while nobody seems entirely sure what the current royal family's name is; maybe it's "Windsor", but the princes are apparently "Wales", and "Mountbatten" is in there somewhere as well. There seems to be a deliberate effort to avoid having a readily-identifiable family name, in a way which you don't really see with the Tudors and Stuart.
I think what Arakhor just posted is enough to say that there was a deliberate effort to underemphasise the family name of the reigning monarch. The current royal family's name is definitely 'Mountbatten-Windsor', by the way. 'Wales' isn't a surname but a locality, because Harry is part of the princely family of Wales - my guess is that the Army used that as his surname because it makes him much less obviously royal on every personnel list in which he crops up. He can't be the only Harry Wales in the Army.
Again confusing names and titles. The English monarchy changed its name to Windsor in WW I, Hannover being considered 'too German'. Prince of Wales is a title. Queen Elizabeth is not queen of Windsor, but of England.
I wasn't suggesting it was. But that might go a long way to explaining why the Von was outlawed.
Technically he is Willem-Alexander van Oranje-Nassau. Not van Amsberg. (Although that might be included in his titles, if you want to be nitpicky.) It really is his name, there is no title 'van Oranje-Nassau', because those principalities have long disappeared. (Just as Amsberg, by the way.) The point is, for it to be a title, you have be something of Oranje/Nassau/Amsberg/Habsburg. Once the principality is gone it is redundant to use any title associated with it. The difference between Austrian Habsburg and and (constitutional) monarchies is that in the latter there still is a nobility, c.q. royalty. Austria abolished nobility, and with it noble titles. Strictly speaking, removing Von then is consistent with that.
I wasn't suggesting it was. But that might go a long way to explaining why the Von was outlawed.
Technically he is Willem-Alexander van Oranje-Nassau. Not van Amsberg. (Although that might be included in his titles, if you want to be nitpicky.) It really is his name, there is no title 'van Oranje-Nassau', because those principalities have long disappeared. (Just as Amsberg, by the way.) The point is, for it to be a title, you have be something of Oranje/Nassau/Amsberg/Habsburg. Once the principality is gone it is redundant to use any title associated with it. The difference between Austrian Habsburg and and (constitutional) monarchies is that in the latter there still is a nobility, c.q. royalty. Austria abolished nobility, and with it noble titles. Strictly speaking, removing Von then is consistent with that.
Harry is the son of the Prince of Wales, FP, but it's traditional to adopt your father's locality if you don't have one of your own. His cousin, James, Viscount Severn, would be Prince James of Wessex, because he's in male-line descent from the reigning monarch, but instead he's 'merely' styled as the son of an earl (Prince Edward being Earl of Wessex), in an apparently deliberate attempt to de-emphasise his royal titles. Thus, his name is "The Honourable James Alexander Philip Theo Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn", but he could have been "His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". One set has a surname: the other doesn't.
Queen Elizabeth II (as noted above) is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the Queen of England. The last one died in 1714.
A dynastic house is not the same as a surname. If you want a very clear indication of that and all the preceding does not sway you, read up about King Constantine II, former King of the Hellenes, and their refusal to grant him a passport unless he 'chooses' a surname, which (as a member of European royalty) he does not have.
Queen Elizabeth II (as noted above) is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the Queen of England. The last one died in 1714.
A dynastic house is not the same as a surname. If you want a very clear indication of that and all the preceding does not sway you, read up about King Constantine II, former King of the Hellenes, and their refusal to grant him a passport unless he 'chooses' a surname, which (as a member of European royalty) he does not have.
As I seem to recall Ian Hislop saying, after accidentally referring to Prince William as the heir to the throne, it's odd how the mind instinctively skips a generation there for some reason...
Whoops - fixed.
With Charles, to be honest, it's not all that surprising...
Charles is almost as old as my dad and has been Prince of Wales for 45 years, so I can understand people simply not thinking of him as King, but I'm not sure about overlooking him entirely. Is that something to do with his politics, with William being much more photogenic or what?
Regarding King Willem-Alexander, I shouldn't have said that he was called King Willem-Alexander, because of course titles are never part of your name, but his full name is Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand, just like Prince Charles' is Charles Philip Arthur George. King Constantine appears to be just Konstantinos, so the Greek royals are weird.
Regarding King Willem-Alexander, I shouldn't have said that he was called King Willem-Alexander, because of course titles are never part of your name, but his full name is Willem-Alexander Claus George Ferdinand, just like Prince Charles' is Charles Philip Arthur George. King Constantine appears to be just Konstantinos, so the Greek royals are weird.
I think I have asked this before, but I don't recall the answer...
Does Charles have to assume the throne first before his kids become eligible? What if he dies before his mother? Does Andrew become King and then it passes to Andrew's children, or is it William > Harry no matter what from the moment they were born?
Does Charles have to assume the throne first before his kids become eligible? What if he dies before his mother? Does Andrew become King and then it passes to Andrew's children, or is it William > Harry no matter what from the moment they were born?
Yes, he does. If Prince Charles were to drop dead, the heir apparent would become the Queen's oldest surviving son.
Less 'photogenic' and more 'sane'. Charles talks to plants.
Less 'photogenic' and more 'sane'. Charles talks to plants.
Really?? The UK recently adopted absolute primogeniture, rather than male-preference (cognatic-agnatic) primogeniture, but the main principle of primogeniture is that the offspring of elder heirs take precedence over younger heirs. It's been that way almost since the year dot!
You may be right, I thought the 'primo' part was only relative to the reigning monarch.
This is correct - for once FP is wrong here. Logically, you'd think that the oldest surviving son/child of the monarch would be the next in line, but this isn't the case. If Charles were to die tomorrow, William would be the heir to the throne, and his son, George, would be second in line. Harry would be third in line, and Andrew fourth. If Charles and William were to die tomorrow, George would be the heir to the throne, over both Andrew and Harry. For Andrew to become the heir to the throne, Charles and his entire line, i.e. William, Harry, and George, would all have to die before him.
This seems a bit illogical, as one imagines "monarchy" to sit in the current monarch and then pass to whoever is the oldest son/child of that monarch upon their own death, but I assume the reasoning behind it is that it preserves stability. I.e. as things currently stand we can be pretty confident that William will become king at some point, unless he dies first; and it makes no difference whether Charles predeceases his mother or not. If Andrew were to become next in line upon Charles' death there would be greater uncertainty about where things are going. Not, of course, that it makes any practical difference to anyone other than the people directly involved.
Hmm, okay. One more thing to clarify and then I promise I'll butt back out of this thread
What would happen if The Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William were to die? I understand from what you said that it would lead to King George, but he's only a baby. Would Andrew become regent, or would Princess Catherine still become Queen Catherine? Or maybe she'd be regent?
What would happen if The Queen, Prince Charles, and Prince William were to die? I understand from what you said that it would lead to King George, but he's only a baby. Would Andrew become regent, or would Princess Catherine still become Queen Catherine? Or maybe she'd be regent?
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
To be fair, if all of them die, and regency is forced, maybe the English public will finally give up on monarchy.
Or get drunk, like last time they had regency happened.
Or get drunk, like last time they had regency happened.
Similar threads
