Interesting Point

[bcholmes]

So, I was reading Wikipedia, and came across an interesting point: if Thursday's budget vote had gone the other way, an election would have been called. All Canadians know that part. Here's the interesting part: usually when an election is required, the Prime Minister asks the Governor General to dissolve parliament. But our monarch is in the country, and she outranks the Governor General, so she could have been the one to dissolve parliament.

Comments

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

Whew, watch republican spittle fly if she had, though, hmm? For me, I'm alright with the old girl. She's dignified, and certainly there are countries in the world with far more embarrassing chief executives, not that I'm thinking of anyone in particular.

The idea of idiot Charles being King, though, is enough to make me republican. He's got all the looks of his sister, and all the brains of his father. NOT a good combination.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Do you think Charles will become George VII, or Edward IX? I'd put my money on George VII, personally.

[lovecraftienne.livejournal.com]

It's a good question. I pondered for a bit whether I could come up with any other names he might choose, but it really does seem best to stick to the two there. Not going to choose Charles; Henry IX would remind us too readily of Henry VIII; John's right out.

I think we're left with, as you suggest, George VII and Edward IX, and I can't imagine him taking the name his brother's been using for so many years, so yes, I'm thinking George VII is the likely winner.

However...if I were inclined to lay a fiver on it, I'd also put one on James - is it II or III?(I can't remember and my pocket guide to the monarchy is in my bedside table)

[rosefox]

I thought it was all but certain that he was going to pass the torch to the next generation and go gallivanting off with Camilla.

[the_axel]

?
Princes of Wales don't change there names when they become monarch.
If he hangs around until Liz II quits, he'll be Charles III.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Sure they do. Victoria's son, Prince Albert became Edward VII. Besides, "King Charles" is a Stuart name.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

I've thought about this. While Charles is a name with a history, I think you're right in pointing out that it's a "Stuart" name, and it hasn't been used since the Restoration. Going with the Hannoverian scheme would lead to either George or Edward, but as was pointed out, he's got a brother Eddie, so that makes George VII the best bet. On the other hand, I'm wondering if he may not adopt "William" (would that be William III or IV? I'm too lazy to check at the moment), in order to smooth the way for his son to use "William" when he ascends.

On the other hand, I'd prefer him to just allow the throne to pass over him, though I'm not sure that would make William the heir if he did. And by the marriage of a great-great aunt (or something like that), I'm related to these folks. Her husband was a direct descendant of the Plantagenets, along with just about every party in the intrigues around Edward II. My direct ancestors, to the best of my knowledge at this point, are only descended from farmers and thatchers in Somerset.