Royal Wedding and chess tournaments

[Alex McFarlane]

Charles III ?????????????????????

Don't you mean Charles I? He may not be the first charlie to be a monarch but surely he will not make the same mistake as his mother with regard to the number associated with the name.

Are you aware that the Royal Mail in Scotland simply has a crown on its vans? There is no ERII underneath it.

[Alex Holowczak]

Charles III ?????????????????????

Don't you mean Charles I? He may not be the first charlie to be a monarch but surely he will not make the same mistake as his mother with regard to the number associated with the name.

Are you aware that the Royal Mail in Scotland simply has a crown on its vans. There is no ERII underneath it?

Charles I and Charles II were Kings of Scotland too. So Charles would succeed as Charles III.

You're right that Elizabeth I was never a Queen of Scotland though, after her death James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

[Phil Neatherway]

There are those who consider that Bonnie Prince Charlie was Charles III !!!

[Alex McFarlane]

Alex,
I don't think that there has been a Charles as King of N Ireland. He would certainly be Charles III of Great Britain but not of the United Kingdom.
Wasn't Charles II king of Scotland for longer than he was king of England?

[Stewart Reuben]

Remember, chess is THE ROYAL GAME

Surely it would be a royal wedding clashing with Uxbridge, not the other way round?

Stewart

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex,
I don't think that there has been a Charles as King of N Ireland. He would certainly be Charles III of Great Britain but not of the United Kingdom.
Wasn't Charles II king of Scotland for longer than he was king of England?

Charles II of Scotland was Charles II of England, and at the same time became Charles II of Ireland. Northern Ireland is the successor to Ireland (the republic split from the north, not vice versa).

He would be Charles III of the United Kingdom because the numbering was continued first at the merger of Great Britain, and then at the merger of the United Kingdom. I.e. the numbering continues as if they were only ever one country. Charles would be the third Charles in the monarchy of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so he should come to the throne as Charles III.

Charles II was King of Scotland for the same time as he was King of England and Ireland. The monarchy of those three nations was united from 1605 (James VI/I), but England and Scotland never joined to form Great Britain until 1707. Ireland only joined the United Kingdom in 1801. So there was no title of King of Great Britain until 1707, and no title of King of United Kingdom until 1801.

[Sean Hewitt]

Alex,
I don't think that there has been a Charles as King of N Ireland. He would certainly be Charles III of Great Britain but not of the United Kingdom.
Wasn't Charles II king of Scotland for longer than he was king of England?

Charles II of Scotland was Charles II of England, and at the same time became Charles II of Ireland. Northern Ireland is the successor to Ireland (the republic split from the north, not vice versa).

If this was QI, the bells would be ringing and the lights flashing.

Charles II was proclaimed King of Scotland on 6 February 1649, one week after the execution of his father, Charles I although he lived in exile in France and the Netherlands. However, England (and Ireland) abandoned the monarchy and Charles II was not declared King of England until 29 May 1660, after the death of Oliver Cromwell, some 11 years after being proclaimed King of Scotland.

[Sean Hewitt]

Remember, chess is THE ROYAL GAME

Surely it would be a royal wedding clashing with Uxbridge, not the other way round?

Stewart

I agree. We were in the diary first!

[Michael Jones]

If Charles and Camilla's wedding was postponed for the Pope's funeral, surely William and Kate's should be for something as important as a chess tournament?

[Louise Sinclair]

Catherine de Medici used chess to distract Conde just before civil war broke out in France. Knowing that Louis de Conde loved chess she arranged for the most skilful player from her L'escadron volante to engage this soldier in a series of games.Conde sucumbed to his female charmer and Catherine's distraction tactics might have helped decide the outcome of the civil war.
Ulimately the Valois line died out due to the impotency of the kings and Henri of Navarre ascended the throne having changed his religion and declaring Paris worth a mass.
History does not record if he thought it worth a game of chess.
King Charles II (nicknamed old Rowley or Chanticleer) was very popular with his subjects due to his adultery, tolerance and merry making I have never heard that Charles is planning on taking the title of George VII. Edward VII was badgered by his mother to take the title of Albert I but after a dysfunctional upbringing he declined when reaching the throne.
Louise

[Paul Habershon]

I'm saying that given Queen Elizabeth II is still going strong, aged 80something (and her mother lived to 100), she's probably still got some way to go before her death. She'll be succeeded by Charles as George VII, who is about 25 years younger. So it'll be 30-40 years before William comes to the throne. So that's quite a long time...

I've heard they may skip a generation. And I've heard that Charles is ambivalent about the throne, considering it a bit of an anachronism, an antiquated relic.

Prince Charles will do huge damage if he refuses to succeed. The succession is not a popularity contest - leave that to General Elections and politicians. The monarchy symbolises continuity and stability. Who wants a succession of Presidents for pomp and ceremony? They have a different job to do. There has to be an unelected No 1 to take precedence over politicians and keep them in their place. I'm not anti-politicians but the monarchy is special to this country, is good for tourism and is comparatively cheap for the taxpayer (58p p.a. per head was the last figure I remember). Look at the status of Kings and Queens in chess!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Catherine de Medici used chess to distract Conde just before civil war broke out in France.

To bring up another connection between chess and royalty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Game_at_Chess

That is (apparently) "an allegory for the stormy relationship between Spain (the black pieces) and Great Britain".

Indeed: "King James I of England is the White King; King Philip IV of Spain is the Black King."

I'm sure there are other examples as well.

[Arshad Ali]

The monarchy symbolises continuity and stability.

For "continuity" read reaction.

There has to be an unelected No 1 to take precedence over politicians and keep them in their place.

The British monarchy does no such thing. The monarchy serves as a useful tool for those who really control the British state to inhibit populist change.

I'm not anti-politicians but the monarchy is special to this country...

Nothing special about the British monarchy. At the end of WW1, the Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs, and Ottoman sultans -- all of whom had been around for centuries -- vanished from the stage. Some might argue that the institution of the monarchy is just one more element that prevents the country from changing radically. The infrastructure is decrepit, there's a shortage of housing and jobs, British industry is in long-term decline, the social welfare state is being dismantled -- but hey! -- there's still the spectacle of the Royal weddings, the changing of the guard, and all the other antiquated trappings of a dead feudal past. All to be read in The Sun and the Daily Mail, or to be followed on Sky TV.

Not saying I'm necessarily right; just that there's more than one opinion on the matter.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

the monarchy is special to this country, is good for tourism and is comparatively cheap for the taxpayer (58p p.a. per head was the last figure I remember).

58p per taxpayer... why pay anything? Personally I’d rather not give my money to somebody just because of who his parents are. Who decides they are any better than you or I? Why should we be told to bow and respect people who are not in any way extraordinary?

I concur they are good for tourism, they're an example of how embarrassingly foolish this country is. They can point and laugh at how we allow the Windsor family to sit at head of the state based solely on birthright. It's as ridiculous as religion - why must we hang on to a way of life that suited the uneducated of yesteryear?

[Alex Holowczak]

the monarchy is special to this country, is good for tourism and is comparatively cheap for the taxpayer (58p p.a. per head was the last figure I remember).

58p per taxpayer... why pay anything? Personally I’d rather not give my money to somebody just because of who his parents are. Who decides they are any better than you or I? Why should we be told to bow and respect people who are not in any way extraordinary?

I concur they are good for tourism, they're an example of how embarrassingly foolish this country is. They can point and laugh at how we allow the Windsor family to sit at head of the state based solely on birthright. It's as ridiculous as religion - why must we hang on to a way of life that suited the uneducated of yesteryear?

If we had an elected Head of State, the taxpayer would probably pay far more. If not through increased official visits, then they'd have to pay it in setting up the administration for the elections to take place every so often.

I guess the Royal Family is a bit like inheritance. They've owned UK, GB and England since they were all established as countries. So their next generation inherits their possessions. In a similar way, you own your house, and choose who inherits it (after paying tax on it, of course).

At the moment, the Queen is a far better symbol of Britishness than an elected Head of State would be. To the outside world, our monarchy is one of our greatest selling points. Because she's more reclusive by nature, and indeed apolitical, if the Queen visits something in the country, then there's likely to be far more excitement for the people who work there than if an elected Head of State visited. When her grandson married, it made global news. I can't imagine Obama's grandson getting married would generate similar headlines.