Oh, and while we're all imagining--if not voicing--a downright Shakespearian end to The [Second] Elizabethan Age, does anyone herein know if Prince Charles is on record as confirming he shall indeed become Charles III?

You see, the Price of Wales might consider Charles line to be an unlucky succession, given how Charles I ended up a few centuries back. Meanwhile, Charles has got four given names--King George VII would sure be a fun choice!*--but couldn't he also go off the chart--like Pope John Paul I did--and become King Ichabod, or even King Ahab?

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
____________________________________________
* As would Arthur, although THAT selection would necessitate being stylized as King Arthur II?, given that the First was almost certainly only legendary.

On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 00:49:10 UTC+10:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh, and while we're all imagining--if not voicing--a downright Shakespearian end to The [Second] Elizabethan Age, does anyone herein know if Prince Charles is on record as confirming he shall indeed become Charles III?
>
> You see, the Price of Wales might consider Charles line to be an unlucky succession, given how Charles I ended up a few centuries back. Meanwhile, Charles has got four given names--King George VII would sure be a fun choice!*--but couldn't he also go off the chart--like Pope John Paul I did--and become King Ichabod, or even King Ahab?
>
> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> ____________________________________________
> * As would Arthur, although THAT selection would necessitate being stylized as King Arthur II?, given that the First was almost certainly only legendary.

A double named king would be different, like say King Charles Philip, like JP1 and JP2.

On 2/20/2022 4:57 PM, Meteorite Debris wrote:
> On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 00:49:10 UTC+10:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Oh, and while we're all imagining--if not voicing--a downright Shakespearian end to The [Second] Elizabethan Age, does anyone herein know if Prince Charles is on record as confirming he shall indeed become Charles III?
>>
>> You see, the Price of Wales might consider Charles line to be an unlucky succession, given how Charles I ended up a few centuries back. Meanwhile, Charles has got four given names--King George VII would sure be a fun choice!*--but couldn't he also go off the chart--like Pope John Paul I did--and become King Ichabod, or even King Ahab?
>>
>> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
>> ____________________________________________
>> * As would Arthur, although THAT selection would necessitate being stylized as King Arthur II?, given that the First was almost certainly only legendary.
>
> A double named king would be different, like say King Charles Philip, like JP1 and JP2.

He could fulfill his once expressed desire and be King Tampon!

--
Sanford M. Manley

"Trying to be right all the time
is a very subtle way of being wrong."

Meteorite Debris <peter.gregory.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 21 February 2022 at 00:49:10 UTC+10:30, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Oh, and while we're all imagining--if not voicing--a downright Shakespearian end to The [Second] Elizabethan Age, does anyone herein know if Prince Charles is on record as confirming he shall indeed become Charles III?
>>
>> You see, the Price of Wales might consider Charles line to be an unlucky succession, given how Charles I ended up a few centuries back. Meanwhile, Charles has got four given names--King George VII would sure be a fun choice!*--but couldn't he also go off the chart--like Pope John Paul I did--and become King Ichabod, or even King Ahab?
>>
>> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
>> ____________________________________________
>> * As would Arthur, although THAT selection would necessitate being stylized as King Arthur II?, given that the First was almost certainly only legendary.
>
> A double named king would be different, like say King Charles Philip, like JP1 and JP2.

Different enough to be inappropriate,
though the King of the Netherlands has
foolishly chosen to be Willem-Alexander
rather than William IV as royal style.
(The King of Sweden is "Carl XVI Gustaf",
honoring the previous namesakes,though
the number used includes legendary ones,
a reverse of the Netherlands situation
where the numbering of Williams restarted
when Stadholders gave way to Kings).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

radioacti...@gmail.com <radioactiveseattle@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and while we're all imagining--if not voicing--a downright
> Shakespearian end to The [Second] Elizabethan Age, does anyone herein know
> if Prince Charles is on record as confirming he shall indeed become Charles
> III?

It is believed that he will and I would be disappointed otherwise.

> You see, the Price of Wales might consider Charles line to be an unlucky
> succession, given how Charles I ended up a few centuries back. Meanwhile,
> Charles has got four given names--King George VII would sure be a fun
> choice!*

That will be his grandson.

> --but couldn't he also go off the chart--like Pope John Paul I
> did--and become King Ichabod, or even King Ahab?

Theoretically could but certainly should not.

> BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
> ____________________________________________
> * As would Arthur, although THAT selection would necessitate being stylized
> as King Arthur II?, given that the First was almost certainly only
> legendary.

Precisely because the "first" was clearly not a real King,
numbering should NOT consider him in any future case.

The dubious numbering in British reckoning is that
of the Constantines...although all Kings named Constantine
reigned only in Scotland,it is agreed that future monarchs
will go by the higher number when the number in England and
in Scotland differs.(All Kings named Robert also reigned
only in Scotland but the next would be Robert IV of the UK;
the present Elizabeth is Elizabeth II even though the first
reigned only in England,and no Richard ever reigned in
Scotland but the next would be Richard IV).
For Constantines,however,they ruled over different,
increasing portions of modern Scotland,and though he was
counted in Victorian scholarship Constantine mac Fergusa
(ruled over the Picts from 789 to 820) is currently mostly
discounted,with Constantine mac Cinaeda(King of the Picts
862 to 877) treated as King Constantine I of Scotland,
as he was part of the House of Alpin descended from the
earlier Constantine's sister,with descendants of the
earlier Constantine unclear after his son Drest IX
(if all pre-Alpin Pictish Kings are ignored,the next
(if there could ever be one) British King named Drest
would be Drest I but if they do count,Drest XI).
The later Kings Constantine were Constantine mac Aeda
(King of Alba 900-943) and Constantine mac Cuilen(King of
Alba 995-997) so if they are II and III a future King
Constantine would be IV but if the first one is restored
to the lists he would be V.
Duncan (of Macbeth fame) was the first King over all
of Scotland,after all of the Constantines.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In article <suvg2e$9sv$1@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
<le@top.put.com> wrote:

> Precisely because the "first" [Arthur] was clearly not a real King

That's not clear at all.

A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <suvg2e$9sv$1@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
> <le@top.put.com> wrote:
>
>> Precisely because the "first" [Arthur] was clearly not a real King
>
>
> That's not clear at all.

If he existed,he was a "dux bellorum" (military commander,
not head of state).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

In article <sv10ur$4ds$1@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
<le@top.put.com> wrote:

> A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
> > In article <suvg2e$9sv$1@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
> > <le@top.put.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Precisely because the "first" [Arthur] was clearly not a real King
> >
> >
> > That's not clear at all.
>
> If he existed,he was a "dux bellorum" (military commander,
> not head of state).

Fair enough.

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:24:18 AM UTC-8, A Friend wrote:
> In article <suvg2e$9sv$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
> <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
>
> > Precisely because the "first" [Arthur] was clearly not a real King
>
>
> That's not clear at all.

come on man

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 8:19:10 AM UTC-6, radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:
> does anyone herein know if Prince Charles is on record as confirming he shall indeed become Charles III?

I've been known to make a mistake or two over the past 67 years, but as I understand it, he will be required to accept.... ummm.....kingship. At that point, he can abdicate if he so chooses.

In article <e73adc9b-2450-474f-8e8e-02177a3830f5n@googlegroups.com>, MJ
Emigh <mj@mjmagician.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 8:19:10 AM UTC-6, radioacti...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > does anyone herein know if Prince Charles is on record as confirming he
> > shall indeed become Charles III?
>
> I've been known to make a mistake or two over the past 67 years, but as I
> understand it, he will be required to accept.... ummm.....kingship. At that
> point, he can abdicate if he so chooses.

They're talking about what name he'll take. I've never heard that he'd
refuse the crown.

In article <998070ef-5ef3-4856-a4c1-4ae83560b919n@googlegroups.com>,
Topic Cop <Beaver_Fever@live.com> wrote:

> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:24:18 AM UTC-8, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <suvg2e$9sv$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
> > <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Precisely because the "first" [Arthur] was clearly not a real King
> >
> >
> > That's not clear at all.
>
> come on man

All legends have some basis in fact. We don't know very much about
this particular one. We surely don't know enough to say that Arthur
never really existed.

I'm not talking about the magical stuff.

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:02:45 PM UTC-8, A Friend wrote:
> In article <998070ef-5ef3-4856...@googlegroups.com>,
> Topic Cop <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:24:18 AM UTC-8, A Friend wrote:
> > > In article <suvg2e$9sv$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
> > > <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Precisely because the "first" [Arthur] was clearly not a real King
> > >
> > >
> > > That's not clear at all.
> >
> > come on man
> All legends have some basis in fact. We don't know very much about
> this particular one. We surely don't know enough to say that Arthur
> never really existed.
>
> I'm not talking about the magical stuff.

Sounds like bullshit to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

In article <0dae58a7-119f-4952-8a37-0e7c0c3c36b2n@googlegroups.com>,
Topic Cop <Beaver_Fever@live.com> wrote:

> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:02:45 PM UTC-8, A Friend wrote:
> > In article <998070ef-5ef3-4856...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Topic Cop <Beaver...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:24:18 AM UTC-8, A Friend wrote:
> > > > In article <suvg2e$9sv$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Louis Epstein
> > > > <l...@top.put.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Precisely because the "first" [Arthur] was clearly not a real King
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's not clear at all.
> > >
> > > come on man
> > All legends have some basis in fact. We don't know very much about
> > this particular one. We surely don't know enough to say that Arthur
> > never really existed.
> >
> > I'm not talking about the magical stuff.
>
>
> Sounds like bullshit to me
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

Yes, it does say that most modern historians agree that Arthur didn't
actually exist. Maybe not, but the legend of Arthur originated
somehow, somewhere. It dates back perhaps 1700 years, so we'll
probably never know.

I've sometimes wondered what people 3000 years from now will make of
Superman and Batman.