The former Prince of Wales chose a name King Charles The third was his official title after taking over the king after the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, Queen of England, and the name was chosen to return to the monarchy 337 years after the death of the last king to share this title, Charles II, in 1685.-
It should be noted that this was a royal choice and not just a formality: Prince Charles was not asked to choose his first name as his real name, and there were some speculations that he would not, according to the website. of ancient origins.
The new king’s full birth name is Charles Philip Arthur George, and he could have chosen any of these four names for his official royal designation, and many doubt he would have chosen to be crowned King George VII, in honor of his great-grandfather.
The first King Charles was born in Scotland in 1600, his parents were King James VI of Scotland, who was also crowned King of England in 1603, and Queen Anne, the former princess of Denmark. King Charles I ascended to the throne of England, Scotland and a united Ireland after the death of his father in 1625, and was immediately in trouble.
At the beginning of the 17th century, the parliaments of England and Scotland began to demand a greater role in shaping politics. This angered King Charles I, who firmly believed in his divine right to rule as he saw fit. Over the years, the conflict between the king and the parliamentarians escalated into an open struggle for power.
Charles I’s attempts at religious reform caused political turmoil in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, culminating in the religiously motivated Episcopal Wars in 1639 and 1640.
As disastrous as Charles I’s reign was for the English monarchy, its failure alone may not have been enough to convince people that Charles’s name was an insult. It took another disastrous and unpopular reign for Charles II to implant the idea that Charles might be a name for royalty to avoid.
Charles II offered the misfortune of serving as king during the disastrous and deadly Great Plague of 1665 and the equally devastating Great Fire of London in 1666. Although associated with these terrible events, the king himself was relatively popular mainly due to his jovial nature. and his preferences for religious tolerance. However, historians have judged Charles II essentially a failure, as he lacked the skills, knowledge, discipline and temperament to function effectively as a statesman, economic politician or military leader.
–
