Wot, no Charles?

Why English royalty has avoided the name

- R. PRASANNAN

Charles I (1600 - 1649)

MANY HAD EXPECTED Charles to adopt a new regnal name on his coronation, just as his stuttering grandfather Albert of The King’s Speech fame had taken the name George VI. For, no English king has borne the name Charles after a Charles was executed in 1649 and his son, another Charles, presided over a lecherous reign marked by national calamities. Thus, the new king, by retaining his given name, is making a bold statement to his subjects—that he won’t be cowered by the ghosts of England’s past.

First about names. The British have Burke’s Peerage, but they have no Maneka Gandhi with a Book of Baby Names. When it comes to naming babies, the English royals have had few choices. Since the Norman conquest of 1066, England has had about 40 kings, but just about a dozen names to give them. Thus, they have had eight Henrys and Edwards, six Georges, four Williams, three Richards, two Jameses, and two Charleses ruling them. Indeed they have had one-off names here and there—like a Philip, a Stephen, and, of course, a John.

The name John has been avoided since the early 13th century, after their only John brought ignominy to the crown. He went back on the promises of liberty he had made in Magna Carta, and brought about England’s first political strife, known in history as the Barons’ War. He paid the price for his sins—he drowned to death while fleeing with his loot.