Upon Prince William of Wales coming of age, some refer to a succession of “Charles III” and “William V.” History cautions against such confidence.
Of the 23 monarchs of England in the last 500 years, only four have been first-born sons of their predecessors: George II (1727), George IV (1820), Edward VII (1901) and Edward VIII (1936). The others were later sons (five), sisters (four), brothers (three), cousins (three), daughter, grandson, niece or nephew of the predecessor.
The longest reach into the pool of cousins was George I (1714), who was promoted over 57 living others who had a closer genealogical right but were Roman Catholic.
And “Charles III?” Monarchs, like popes, choose their throne names. For example, George V was succeeded in 1936 by his son David, who chose to reign under one of his six other names as Edward VIII. His brother Albert, anxious to restore the prestige of the throne, chose the name George VI to symbolize continuity with the stable reign of his father.
Charles I (executed) and Charles II (licentious) were not of especially happy memory, and it may be that the Prince of Wales (Charles Philip Arthur George) might opt for George VII for the same reasons that George VI did. If he wanted to symbolize a new age but with stable principles, he might choose Philip I as a reminder of his no-nonsense father in the modern world. But if he wants to put the magic back into the monarchy, there is always his remaining name: Arthur.
