He could be King Charles III, King Philip, King Arthur II (most likely would use II to avoid confusion with the fictional King Arthur) or George VII.
He could go either way between Charles or George. I think little to no chance he uses Arthur or Philip.
He was exiled to France after WWII and had to watch the coronation of his niece of TV,
She won’t abdicate she is a strong believer in the Throne is till death.
She has over the years given over more and more of her duties to Charles and William, she no longer does knighthoods, etc.
If he changes his name it will be likely to George which is a strong royal name within his family used by both his grandfather and great-grand father.
Edward is also a very strong name with his Great-Great Grandfather but his brother tainted it.
George VI and Queen Mary HATED Edward because oh how they treated his younger brother Prince John who suffered from serious health issues having epilepsy and possible austism.
Edward call his young death little more then “little more than a regrettable nuisance.”, along with a number of other horrible names the letter being so distasteful the royal record keeper burned them. It was so bad Edward wrote a series of letter begging his mother to forgive him.
Queen Mary and the rest of the family never forgave him for this massive insult.
Talk about getin’ a pass, sheesh.
Some say we never really won the Revolutionary War.
I think it was AOC who said that.
She also said the 25th amendment was to stop FDR from running for a 5th term and that Shirley Chisholm was a Democrat nominee for president.
It looks like that they are setting up for the Queen to effectively “retire” but not abdicate on her 95th birthday. She would remain the Sovereign, but Prince Charles would take the title Prince Regent on that day and from that point perform all the duties of the Crown.
My opinion of QEII would be further diminished if that is the action she takes.
I don’t see any problem with it and it really does not affect the other Commonwealth nations, which essentially have permanent “regents” in the form of Governor-Generals.
George IV served as regent during the “madness of King George III.” At age 95, she can probably honestly state she has a “disability” that prevents her from carrying out her duties. There is really no substantive difference between Prince Charles, Prince Regent or King Charles III.
She has no legal obligation to abdicate in that situation. If she doesn’t want to abdicate but to set up a regency, I really don’t see the problem.
It is irrelevant whether there are Governors-General in place or not. If she can’t do her duties then she should abdicate. If Charles is going to do the duties it should be done as King and with Camilla as Queen.
Dare to dream, Saf. Dare to dream…
Not in the slightest.
The worst about Andrew is still on its way.
And only the Queen’s continued existence gives him any protection.
“King” Charles will be very quick to get rid of Andrew. He has despised Andrew for a long time. And there are not too many people that would be in the slightest disappointed if Andrew gets sacked.
Perhaps only Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, who will both likely lose their titles as well.
I’m a dreamer. I wish he was in prison.
My guess is she can recover from that.
My guess is there are many more skeletons in his closet to come to light. You may call it a dream, but its not a pipedream.
I bet she can also. 
The only way HRH Queen Elizabeth will hand over to Prince Charles is if she is unable to continue to act as Queen due to incapacity of severe ill health.
The Queen takes her duties as the monarch extremely seriously. When she ascended to the throne it truly was a lifetime appointment for her.
I understand that but the reality is that due to her age she is not able to fulfil her duties as Queen. Those duties include Queen of Commonwealth countries including Australia. I also personally think that she owes Charles the opportunity to become King sooner rather than later.
In the spirit of full disclosure I have no problems with the monarchy continuing in the UK if the people of UK but in my opinion QEII and her successors should have no official position in Australia. Unfortunately, due to our constitution even if I lived to be the current age of QEII I don’t think we will pass the required referendum for this to happen.
