zjemller Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Elizabeth the 2nd's portrait is depicited on more coins than any other monarch. When she dies who will replace her? It would be a world wide coin revolutin!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satootoko Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Elizabeth the 2nd's portrait is depicited on more coins than any other monarch. When she dies who will replace her? It would be a world wide coin revolutin!!! Charles' choices - assuming he uses one of his own given names - areCharles III Arthur I (or Arthur II if he recognizes the original Camelot) Phillip I George VI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedeadpoint Posted April 7, 2008 Report Share Posted April 7, 2008 Charles' choices - assuming he uses one of his own given names - areCharles III Arthur I (or Arthur II if he recognizes the original Camelot) Phillip I George VI How does an heir apparent go about choosing the name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeonB Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Charles' choices - assuming he uses one of his own given names - are...Arthur I (or Arthur II if he recognizes the original Camelot)... That would be Arthur I; there's never been a King Arthur of England. King Arthur, if he existed, was King of the Britons, the Celtic people who became the Welsh. The English monarchy comes from the Britons' rivals, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (specifically the kingdom of Wessex). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Just because an heir is given a name at birth doesn't mean they are going to use it. For instance Prince Albert was named so at birth in 1895, much at the behest of his Great Grandmother, Queen Victoria. He would later reign as George VI, he chose his regnal name. Similarly King Edward VIII was commonly known as David in social circles before he became King in 1936. But indeed in this case Edward was his given name, after his Grandfather, King Edward VII. I believe Prince Charles will not go by another name, if he did, I am sure he would be Henry, since he believes that HVIII got a bad rap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ageka Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 As far as I am concerned I hope they would start with heroes of the empire on the obverse or I will be in reverse Maybe they can start with Dickens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedeadpoint Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 So they chose the names based on previous rulers they admired or have values they share? Perhaps if Charles chose Richard the (4th?) he'd be a warhawk or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 So they chose the names based on previous rulers they admired or have values they share? Perhaps if Charles chose Richard the (4th?) he'd be a warhawk or something? Prince Charles likes the monarchs that seemingly got a bad rap, Richard III, Edward II, Henry VIII etc. If he chose the former two, could be for another reason, unlike HVIII, they did not like girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ageka Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Now can you remind me which was the one that got a red hot iron shoved up his kizzoos ? Was it an Henry ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeOldeCollector Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 I reckon that Charles should choose Burgred, Offa or Harthacnut... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Now can you remind me which was the one that got a red hot iron shoved up his kizzoos ?Was it an Henry ? Edward II. At the probable instigation of his wife, Queen Isabella. After he had his colon cautered his wife would act as regent for Edward III but not for long as she quickly fell out of favour, and found a lover in France that was not popular. She was very loosely portrayed in the movie "Braveheart", quite inaccurately, implying that she seduced William Wallace, she never even met him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ageka Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 Edward II. At the probable instigation of his wife, Queen Isabella. After he had his colon cautered his wife would act as regent for Edward III but not for long as she quickly fell out of favour, and found a lover in France that was not popular. She was very loosely portrayed in the movie "Braveheart", quite inaccurately, implying that she seduced William Wallace, she never even met him. I remember reading he was homosexual which was frowned upon in those days Also apart from Sulfuric acid used by the Medici the red hot poker was the only "undetectable" method ( Barbers or so called doctors of course could see the foaming at the mouth or the burning ) I think Arsenicum would have been preferable if it had been me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumisMattic2200 Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 William V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willieboyd2 Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 I read somewhere that Prince Charles wants to be called "George VII". George VI was originally named Albert. The Catholic Pope gets to pick a new name also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roaddevil Posted April 17, 2008 Report Share Posted April 17, 2008 hmm ...i wonder why there isnt a bad John II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeonB Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 hmm ...i wonder why there isnt a bad John II That'd be cool! John got a bad rap too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roaddevil Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 and answering my own question ..heres the reason :- The name "John" has been considered unlucky by the royal family and its use avoided since the death of the prince ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_John_o..._United_Kingdom king George V youngest son and King George VI smallest brother). The popularly negative historical view of the only English monarch to bear the name -- King John (reigned 1199-1216) -- especially his fictionalization as the villainous Prince John in the Robin Hood stories, has likely compounded concerns about the name. It was reported that Diana, Princess of Wales wished to name her elder son "John," after her own father, but was prevented from doing so by royal tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottishmoney Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 It was reported that Diana, Princess of Wales wished to name her elder son "John," after her own father, but was prevented from doing so by royal tradition. She got her way with William, but not with Harry, that was Chuck's choice. At least they are Diana's children, and not Horseyface's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta Posted April 18, 2008 Report Share Posted April 18, 2008 Donald IV or Malcolm V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tato Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Shouldn´t be Elizabeth called Elizabeth the Second of England and first of Scotland as Scotland never have a Queen called Elizabeth before? Arthur King of Britons (Now Cornishmen and Welshmen) Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tato Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Shouldn´t be Elizabeth called the Elizabeth the Second of England and first of Scotland as Scotland never have a Queen called Elizabeth before?Arthur King of Britons (Now Cornishmen and Welshmen) Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Shouldn´t be Elizabeth called Elizabeth the Second of England and first of Scotland as Scotland never have a Queen called Elizabeth before?Arthur King of Britons (Now Cornishmen and Welshmen) Regards Yes, it was very controversial at the time and still is to this day for many people. It was decided way back that from now on the latest number of any name shall be chosen, so if Scotland has had a King Bob II and England has only had a King Bob then any new King Bob would be King Bob III Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tato Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Ah! thanks a lot for the answer I never listened about that. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.