Names of British monarchs

[Elizabeth II]

Not discussing how alternate successions to the crown could have gone; rather, what other names the monarchs that did reign could have taken.
A King of Queen can take either their first name, or a middle name. The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, uses her first name (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary). The first monarch to have a middle name, King James VI and I, used his middle name (Charles James). Every monarch since George I has had at least one middle name; there is a plethora of opportunities for alternate history here, even if only in the name used. The British monarchs, from Elizabeth I onward, with their reigns and full names, are:
1. Elizabeth I (1558-1603, England)
2. James VI and I (1567-1625, Scotland; 1603-1625, England) - Charles James
3. Charles I (1625-1649)
4. Charles II (1649-1651, 1660-1685, Scotland; 1660-1685, England)
5. James II and VII (1685-1689)
6. Mary II (1689-1694)
7. William III and II (1689-1702)
8. Anne (1702-1714)
9. George I (1714-1727 England; 1714-1715, 1716-1727, Scotland) - George Louis
10. James VIII (1715-1716, 1745-1746, Scotland) - James Francis Edward
11. George II (1727-1760, England; 1727-1745, 1746-1760, Scotland) - George Augustus
12. George III (1760-1820) - George William Frederick
13. George IV (1820-1830) - George Augustus Frederick
14. William IV (1830-1837) - William Henry
15. Victoria (1837-1901) - Alexandrina Victoria
16. Edward VII (1901-1910) - Albert Edward
17. George V (1910-1936) - George Frederick Ernest Albert
18. Edward VIII (1936) - Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David
19. George VI (1936-1952) - Albert Frederick Arthur George
20. Elizabeth II (1952-present) - Elizabeth Alexandra Mary

Assuming each monarch went by their first name, the list would instead be:
1. Elizabeth I
2. Charles I
3. Charles II
4. Charles III
5. James I and VI
6. Mary II
7. William III and II
8. Anne
9. George I
10. James VII
11. George II
12. George III
13. George IV
14. William IV
15. Alexandrina
16. Albert I
17. George V
18. Edward VII
19. Albert II
20. Elizabeth II

One of the more notable effects of this change is that the King James Version (KJV), authorised by King James VI and I in the early 1600s, would instead be the King Charles Version (KCV). One also wonders whether or not Jesus' brother Ya'akov's (Jacob) name would have been translated as "James" (i.e. we could've ended up with a "Book of Jacob" in the New Testament, rather than the "Book of James").

 

[wwbgdiaslt]

Curious as to where you're getting the into about James VI and I being born Charles. Nothing I've seen suggests that (It suggests James Charles, not Charles James), and also indicates the only monarchs not to use their first name were Victoria, Edward VII and George VI.

 

[Elizabeth II]

Curious as to where you're getting the into about James VI and I being born Charles. Nothing I've seen suggests that (It suggests James Charles, not Charles James), and also indicates the only monarchs not to use their first name were Victoria, Edward VII and George VI.

Wikipedia suggests both Charles James and James Charles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I#Childhood
So, I'm not really sure (the version of the article I read awhile ago just mentioned "Charles James", and I hadn't checked again before posting this - my bad).
To date, only Victoria, Edward VII and George VI have used their middle name (and possibly James VI and I, although the info there is contradictory); most have just used their first name. Nonetheless, when a new monarch ascends the throne, he/she is asked which name they will use as Monarch - Elizabeth II reportedly responded "My own, of course" - and middle names are equally legitimate candidates as first names.

 

[wwbgdiaslt]

Wikipedia suggests both Charles James and James Charles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I#Childhood
So, I'm not really sure (the version of the article I read awhile ago just mentioned "Charles James", and I hadn't checked again before posting this - my bad).
To date, only Victoria, Edward VII and George VI have used their middle name (and possibly James VI and I, although the info there is contradictory); most have just used their first name. Nonetheless, when a new monarch ascends the throne, he/she is asked which name they will use as Monarch - Elizabeth II reportedly responded "My own, of course" - and middle names are equally legitimate candidates as first names.

Also that Charles likely won't use Charles, but is rumoured to want to use George VII.

 

[VVD0D95]

Also that Charles likely won't use Charles, but is rumoured to want to use George VII.

A shame there. He’s be a fitting Charles III

 

[The Professor]

A shame there. He’s be a fitting Charles III

Noble or Simple?

 

[VVD0D95]

Noble or Simple?

Noble aha

 

[Elizabeth II]

Also that Charles likely won't use Charles, but is rumoured to want to use George VII.

An unconfirmed speculation; Charles' office said no decision has been made. Although, of his middle names (if he selected one to rule as), George IS the most likely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Prince_of_Wales#Titles,_styles,_honours_and_arms

 

[Jonathan]

The Alberts changed their name as they believe there should only be one true Albert of Great Britain, him being Albert the Prince Consort.

Victoria went against Alexandria as she did not agree with her mother who was also called Alexandria.

Elizabeth II was asked if she wanted an alternative Regal name but I doubt she’d want to be Mary III it Alexandra.

 

[wwbgdiaslt]

The Alberts changed their name as they believe there should only be one true Albert of Great Britain, him being Albert the Prince Consort.

I read that one of the reasons for Edward VII being as such was that Victoria specifically wanted him to use Albert in memory of his father, but by the time that Victoria died, he was so resentful of her keeping him out of state affairs and her need to control many aspects of his life (such as his bride), that he took the regnal name Edward partly to spite his mother.

 

[Jonathan]

I read that one of the reasons for Edward VII being as such was that Victoria specifically wanted him to use Albert in memory of his father, but by the time that Victoria died, he was so resentful of her keeping him out of state affairs and her need to control many aspects of his life (such as his bride), that he took the regnal name Edward partly to spite his mother.

He chose to reign under the name of Edward VII, instead of Albert Edward—the name his mother had intended for him to use — declaring that he did not wish to "undervalue the name of Albert" and diminish the status of his father with whom the "name should stand alone".

 

[wwbgdiaslt]

He chose to reign under the name of Edward VII, instead of Albert Edward—the name his mother had intended for him to use — declaring that he did not wish to "undervalue the name of Albert" and diminish the status of his father with whom the "name should stand alone".

I appreciate that you've copied this from Wikipedia, but it doesn't contradict what I posted. I merely said that I had read that one of the reasons was that he did not want his mother to dictate his regnal name - obviously he's not going to state that outright and the reason given above was very much a clear PR manoeuvre.

Wikipedia also states ...

"... took the regnal name Edward VII, against the wish of his late mother.[3] The new king declared that he chose the name Edward alone as an honoured name borne by six of his predecessors ..."

 

[RobinP]

George VI (1936-1952) - Albert Frederick Arthur George

You could have a King Arthur

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Victoria went against Alexandria as she did not agree with her mother who was also called Alexandria.

Actually Victoria's mom was only Viktoria/Victoire Maria Luise. Alexandrina was for her godfather, Alexander I of Russia. However, IIRC it was due to Alexandrina being considered "too German"/"too foreign"

 

[kasumigenx]

What about a British monarch named Catherine

 

[FriendlyGhost]

Curious as to where you're getting the into about James VI and I being born Charles. Nothing I've seen suggests that (It suggests James Charles, not Charles James)

Wikipedia suggests both Charles James and James Charles

The biography of James VI which I have does say that he was baptised 'Charles James.'

From 'The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & I' by Alan Stewart (Chatto & Windus, London 2003) - Chapter Two, page 20 in the first edition hardback:
'At the font, the Countess of Argyll held the baby while Hamilton [Archbishop of St. Andrews] baptised him "Charles James" - "Charles" for his French godfather, and "James" for "all the good Kings of Scotland his predecessors".'
The source given in the book is 'Le Croc to the Archbishop of Glasgow, 23 December 1566, Stirling, Keith, History of the Church and State, 1: xcvii' - if anyone wants to go into the primary sources...

 

[Elizabeth II]

The biography of James VI which I have does say that he was baptised 'Charles James.'

From 'The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & I' by Alan Stewart (Chatto & Windus, London 2003) - Chapter Two, page 20 in the first edition hardback:
'At the font, the Countess of Argyll held the baby while Hamilton [Archbishop of St. Andrews] baptised him "Charles James" - "Charles" for his French godfather, and "James" for "all the good Kings of Scotland his predecessors".'
The source given in the book is 'Le Croc to the Archbishop of Glasgow, 23 December 1566, Stirling, Keith, History of the Church and State, 1: xcvii' - if anyone wants to go into the primary sources...

Thanks.

 

[Elizabeth II]

You could have a King Arthur

LOL. It's one of Prince Charles' middle names, so we still could yet.

 

[RPW@Cy]

LOL. It's one of Prince Charles' middle names, so we still could yet.

IIRC there are a handful of names that are on an unofficial list of names that will never again be used as regnal names because of the historical baggage (usually, but not always, negative baggage) that comes with them. John is one, Richard is another (because of III, not Lionheart) and Arthur is also on this list because of the legendary baggage associated with it.

 

[Elizabeth II]

IIRC there are a handful of names that are on an unofficial list of names that will never again be used as regnal names because of the historical baggage (usually, but not always, negative baggage) that comes with them. John is one, Richard is another (because of III, not Lionheart) and Arthur is also on this list because of the legendary baggage associated with it.

Aside from King John, no royal has been named John in over a century after Prince John - George V and Mary's youngest child - died of an epileptic fit.