Spot On!

[liberty]

If William became king he could be crowned as King Arthur. Would that not be cool? But would he be king Arthur the first or the second since the fist Arthur was not English. He was Welsh and fought the English trying to keep them out of the country.

[Lord Jim]

Lib, becoming King is not like becoming Pope...

You don't generally take a new name...

Though you might take a new nickname....

William The Bastard became William The Conqueror...

Probably a good PR move....

[Scooter]

A few British monarchs have taken one of their given names other than their first name as their regnal name. George VI was Albert Frederick Arthur George. Edward VII was Albert Edward. Queen Mary (the consort of George V) was Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes. Queen Victoria was Alexandrina Victoria. Since William's full name is William Arthur Philip Louis, it would be entirely within convention for him to choose to reign as King Arthur, although it is unlikely he would choose the name of a king that was more legend than fact.

There has been some talk that Charles will choose George as his regnal name (his full name being Charles Philip Arthur George), partly because neither of the kings named Charles was either successful or popular, and also to reinforce the continuity from the reigns of his grandfather and mother.

Or either of them might choose Philip in recognition that that will be a dynastic change (the Queen's marriage to Prince Philip having created a new dynastic line, even though officially all of the Queen's descendants are considered of the House of Windsor).

[Lord Jim]

Another bit of trivia about William's name...

Charles had originally wanted to make his first name Louis, in honor of Lord Louis Mountbatten, a relative whom Charles was close to and who had been a mentor to him growing up...(one could do a lot worse than Lord Mountbatten as a role model)

But the kibosh was put on this on the grounds that you couldn't have an heir to The British Throne with a name associated with so many French kings....

[Gob]

There has been some talk that Charles will choose George as his regnal name (his full name being Charles Philip Arthur George), partly because neither of the kings named Charles was either successful or popular.

What a shame, the name would have been quite apt by those criteria.

[Econoline]

There has been some talk that Charles will choose George as his regnal name (his full name being Charles Philip Arthur George), partly because neither of the kings named Charles was either successful or popular, and also to reinforce the continuity from the reigns of his grandfather and mother.

Well, if Charles really wants to adopt an image of success, popularity, and continuity he ought to consider becoming "Elizabeth III".

[Lord Jim]

[dgs49]

If a person named, "Earl" bought a Nissan Juke, it would be the Juke of Earl.

[Econoline]

And in Illinois and Indiana there is a regional chain of quick-oil-change places called The Duke of Oil.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Another

[rubato]

The real reason that such implausible and frightening figures as L. Ron Hubbard, Bagwan Shree Ragneesh, Joe McCarthy, and Louis Farrakhan* become leaders is the prevalence in the general population of the need to bang the forehead on the ground at someone's feet and call them 'master'. People are frightened and confused and while they can't figure it out for themselves they want to believe that someone understands it all and can explain it for them. There are a lot of lost sheep looking for a shepherd who will abandon reason and suspend disbelief in exchange for soothing words.

With the modern constitutional monarchy we have created pure figureheads who ability to do harm has been removed in advance. A great advance in technique if you ask me. Probably cheap when you work it all out.

yrs,
rubato

*Elijah Muhammed before him.

[alice]

Jesus Christ ... your bloody Captcha is a bit difficult for the non nerdy among us!!! Who gives a shit about the name of the final frontier ship? And if 3=a and 4=n and 6=whatever .... I thought I got it right but either I stuffed up or someone behind the scenes was enjoying seeing my ever increasing frustration!!!! Luckily I knew that when you're in space no-one can hear you scream - otherwise I'd never have got through!!! Geez - I hope I never get my password wrong again - I'm really scared!!

.... and now back to the program .....

Not really Jim, the monarchy has all but abandoned its governance role, and in fact, were it to try to exercise political power it would bring about its own demise.

When were those two powers last used?

Oh, and I would never deny that I think, and have stated, that I find your system of government insane. 'Cos it is.

My understanding is that the powers were used in 1975, when the Governor General of Australia Sir John Kerr, being the Queen's representative here, used his power to sack the Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and appoint the Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraser as the caretaker Prime Minister. It was to do with the fact that the Opposition had more numbers in the Senate, and they used their numbers to block important supply bills. After being installed as caretaker Goverrnment, the former Opposition then passed the supply bill. After this the Governor General then exercised his power again to dissolve Parliament for a double disslolution election.
I don't know if it was the last time the powers were used, but it was certainly a very big deal here in Australia. Up until then the Governor General had always been thought of as a ceremonial figurehead, just like the Queen he represented. Whitlam certainly never believed Kerr would do this, and the Australian public, by and large, never knew he could do it.
While it didn't bring about the demise of the monarchy at the time, it certainly destroyed John Kerr in that he became a much despised figure because of his action, and remained unpopular amongst the general public of Australia for the rest of his life.

The Governor General was nearly required to step in again when our last election farce looked like being a deadlock - one or two of the Independents that 'sided' with Julia Gillard said that they did it to save the taxpayers having to wear the whole double dissolution thing and a whole new election called.
If this had occurred, our Governor General Quentin Bryce (whose decision it would have been) would not have been held with the same level of contempt as Kerr had been - firstly, because we the public were jolted, as a result of Kerr, into reaslising that the Governor General actually did have some power; and secondly, because we knew we had a bunch of kids squabbling in Parliament and were generally fed up with the lot of them, so it would have been more readily understood if the parent-figure had been forced to step in and sort them all out.

(I know it's not directly the monarch, but the GG is our monarch's direct representative, and my understanding of his position at the time was that Kerr had to get permission from the Queen before he tooko the actions he did)

[Jarlaxle]

I'm an American with strong views on the abolition of The British Monarchy...

I'm strongly opposed to abolishing it.

Oh, so as to stand as a cautionary example to other peoples of the world. Good idea.

Possibly...or maybe just for the entertainment value!