I Question King Charles III’s Decision-making

I mean, his very first decision...

The BBC reports:

He will be known as King Charles III. 

That was the first decision of the new king’s reign. He could have chosen from any of his four names – Charles Philip Arthur George. 

So, the man could have been King Arthur and he chose Charles III?


FILED UNDER: Europe, World Politics,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter


  1. Joe says:

    Several decades ago I spent the summer working as a camp counselor for the Sioux YMCA. One of the other counselors was a member of the Sioux nation and his last name was Clown, not an uncommon name on the reservation being the English translation of Heyoka, the title of an important role in tribal life. He told us that Sioux kids could pick their mom’s last name or their dad’s. We asked what was his alternative to Clown and he told us Fights the Thunder. Whaaaaaa? You had your choice between Clown and Fights the Thunder and you chose Clown? I still liked him but, seriously. . . .

  2. Scott says:

    One day into the failed King Charles monarchy……..

  3. CSK says:

    I read somewhere that Charles asked the women he bedded to refer to him as “Arthur.” Perhaps he wielded a mighty Excalibur.

    It does give new dimensions of meaning to the phrase “sword in the stone.”

  4. Kathy says:

    Anyone else recall his erotic fantasies of feminine hygiene products?

  5. Sleeping Dog says:


    Charles and TFG, cut from the same cloth?

  6. Scott says:

    @Kathy: Now I do. Thanks, Kathy!

  7. CSK says:

    @Sleeping Dog:
    Bite your tongue. No one is as appalling as Trump.

  8. JohnSF says:

    I’ve seen reports that he has been known to closest family and friends as Arthur.
    And there was speculation that he might take the throne as George VII
    Also some speculation that Charles liked the idea of King Philip; but was apparently ruled on historical grounds.
    We’ve had a King Phillip before, despite him being left out of the lists.
    Didn’t work out very well. 🙁

    But name shifts by British monarchs aren’t that unusual
    The late Queen’s father’s first name was Albert; he reigned as George VI
    Queen Victoria’s first name was Alexandrina.
    King Edward VII’s first name was Albert (hence him being often referred to as “Bertie”) and he had been widely expected to be King Albert; decided against.

  9. Slugger says:

    The name was chosen to commemorate the recent passing of a true member of royalty. The new king’s full name is Charles Robert Watts II.

  10. DK says:


    One day into the failed King Charles monarchy……..

    King Charles’s sinking approval ratings spell doom for Democrats.

  11. CSK says:

    Oh, I know. And Edward VIII was “David” to family and friends.

  12. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Heh, to all of the above. You guys are really on your game today.

  13. Sleeping Dog says:

    The question for tomorrow, will be, why didn’t he take the last name of Spaniel?


  14. CSK says:

    @Sleeping Dog:
    There was a joke circulating around the U.K. when I lived there to the effect that there’d be a Brit version of Porgy and Bess titled Corgi and Beth.

  15. Andy says:

    Charles is the logical choice because the guy is already old, and people have been calling him Charles for a very long time.

  16. Franklin says:

    Alright, King Chuck it is.

  17. Lost in Quebec says:

    The first two King Charles were memorable but not in a good way.

    Charles III has a very good chance of being an improvement on his predecessors.

  18. Lost in Quebec says:


    Alright, King Chuck it is.

    Australians would never call him Chuck because that word is Australian slang for vomit. They would chuck a wobbly first.

  19. SC_Birdflyte says:

    There’s no truth to the rumors that he was recently heard whistling, “I’m Henry IX, I am.”

  20. Stormy Dragon says:

    @Lost in Quebec:

    The Georges

    by Walter Savage Landor

    George the First was always reckoned
    Vile, but viler George the Second;
    And what mortal ever heard
    Any good of George the Third?
    When from earth the Fourth descended
    (God be praised!) the Georges ended.

  21. Jay L Gischer says:

    Elizabeth II used that name because it was her best known and primary name, and she’s not one to be intimidated.

    So, we’ve known Charles all his life as Charles, it’s logical, and following in his mothers footsteps to be King Charles, given he’s been Prince Charles so long.

    If one is simply named “Arthur” there’s no presumption. Consider Arthur Dent. Or Dudley Moore’s Arthur Bach. Add “King” in front of it and all eyebrows raise.

  22. CSK says:

    @Lost in Quebec:
    I thought the Australian slang for vomiting was “chunder.”

  23. Since I guess I should have used the humour font: I was making a joke about him being called “King Arthur”–I didn’t actually expect it (and, indeed, would have been surprised if he called himself anything other than King Charles).

  24. Sleeping Dog says:


    Andy, quit being so serious.

  25. Andy says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Oh, I got the joke and it was a a clever one.

  26. Mister Bluster says:

    So, the man could have been King Arthur and he chose Charles III?


    Too bad there’s no way to give this a thumps up!

  27. Franklin says:

    @Lost in Quebec: Possibly just a shortened version of upchuck.

    Anyway, the whole thing is sofa king dumb

  28. Franklin says:

    @Mister Bluster: I’d love the ability to upvote OTB posts, including Taylor’s photography.

  29. Kathy says:

    As to the point of the post, Chuck doesn’t really look like a King Arthur.

  30. JohnSF says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    In all honesty, it was widely thought at one time he might go for George as regnal name.
    As said: Edward VII and George VI were known by other names (both being Albert) before accession, and neither were that young when they came to the throne.

    British upper class use of different names (recognised names, not just nicknames) in public and personal life is not that unusual.
    See (the very non-royal) ex-PM Johnson: Boris in public; Alexander in private.

  31. Mister Bluster says:

    @Mister Bluster:..thumbs up.

    I only looked at my comment at least 5 or 6 times as I know that I am prone to make these kinds of errors. Where is spell check when I need it?

  32. grumpy realist says:

    Well, for many of us here in the U.S., calling himself “King Arthur” would bring to mind lots and lots of bread loaves….

  33. Pylon says:

    I’d have gone with “Kong” just for giggles.

  34. Jay L Gischer says:

    You know, I’m a guy who grew up having to constantly manage the threat of other people thinking, “He’s putting on airs!” of me. So I guess I’m a bit hobbled in seeing the humor in this sort of thing.

  35. dazedandconfused says:

    I’m afraid Monty Python forever ended the choice of “Arthur”….

  36. JohnSF says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    (God be praised!) the Georges ended.

    George V: “I say, hang, on a minute, Landor!”
    George VI: “Bloody cheek!”

  37. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Joe: Any possibility that Sioux children understand the role “Clown” in society in ways you don’t/didn’t? Or that “Fights the Thunder” has the same qualities as “shouts at the clouds?”

  38. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Kathy: This sounds like one of those things that I can live my whole life in ignorance of. Thanks for the warning, Kathy. 😉

  39. Stormy Dragon says:


    Walter Savage Landor died in 1864 😉

  40. JohnSF says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    Walter Savage Landor died in 1864

    “Luckily for him” mutters George V.

  41. Ken_L says:

    He leaned towards Arthur, but palace officials were unable to resolve a furious argument about whether he should be King Arthur, or King Arthur the Second. Lawyers also expressed fears that the palace would be bombarded with plagiarism suits if he went with the former.

  42. Moosebreath says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    There’s also:

    “George the Third
    Ought never to have occurred.
    One can only wonder
    At so grotesque a blunder.”

    Edmund Clerihew Bentley

  43. JohnSF says:

    Arthur II not an issue.
    – No actual, historical record of an Arthur I in the first place
    – Pre Conquest monarchs don’t count in the count.
    Edward the Confessor: is he Edward I? Nope
    Also at least two other pre- Conquest Edwards IIRC.

    Why? Dunno: I’ve never been able to get a consistent reasoning, much beyond the logic of “f” you, you Saxon peasants!”

  44. grumpy realist says:

    @JohnSF: Although there is that theory that a lot of the legends surrounding King Arthur (not the nymphs-lying-in-ponds-dispersing-swords-as-a-basis-for-political-theory part, however) were retellings of the aftereffects of volcanic catastrophes in 530-542.