WI: Queen Elizabeth dies in February 1993

[CCK]

What if Queen Elizabeth had died in February of 1993 a month after the release of the "Camillagate" tapes between Charles and Camilla? Charles and Diana's separation was announced in December of 1992.

Questions:

• Does Charles still become King?
• Does Diana still become Queen? Does she even want to be Queen at this point?
• Do they skip Charles because of the scandal and make William a 10 year old King?
• Do the British throw out the monarchy altogether?
• If Charles and Diana do divorce after Charles becomes King, does he still marry Camilla?
• If they still divorce does Diana still die in 1997?
• What is the public's (British and worldwide) reaction to Charles becoming King at this point?

[zippy]

Originally Posted by CCK

What if Queen Elizabeth had died in February of 1993 a month after the release of the "Camillagate" tapes between Charles and Camilla? Charles and Diana's separation was announced in December of 1992.

Questions:

• Does Charles still become King?
• Does Diana still become Queen? Does she even want to be Queen at this point?
• Do they skip Charles because of the scandal and make William a 10 year old King?
• Do the British throw out the monarchy altogether?
• If Charles and Diana do divorce after Charles becomes King, does he still marry Camilla?
• If they still divorce does Diana still die in 1997?
• What is the public's (British and worldwide) reaction to Charles becoming King at this point?

-Yes
-Possibly not
- unlikely, if they did, who would they appoint regent ?
- unlikely
- divorce quite probably, Marry Camilla possibly
- depends whether Diana and Dodi get togehter - as i have a feeling much as the tinfoil hatters want it to be a conspiracy it was a poor judgement call
- british reaction - probably fairly neutral

[ColeMercury]

Originally Posted by CCK

• Does Charles still become King?
• Does Diana still become Queen? Does she even want to be Queen at this point?
• Do they skip Charles because of the scandal and make William a 10 year old King?
• Do the British throw out the monarchy altogether?
• If Charles and Diana do divorce after Charles becomes King, does he still marry Camilla?
• If they still divorce does Diana still die in 1997?
• What is the public's (British and worldwide) reaction to Charles becoming King at this point?

• Yes.
• Yes.
• That's illegal.
• Probably not.
• Perhaps.
• Perhaps.
• Well, personally if I were around at the time my reaction would be "Hahahahahahahahahaha"

[jkarr]

about the *will he marry Camilla still* question....her previous husband is still alive, even now, and Charles had just divorced Diana...meaning that it would cause another crisis like Edward VIII as the British monarch, as head of the Church of England, cant be married to a divorcee whose ex-spouse is still alive, and id think even if they ignored hers, they might raise some objections due to Diana still being around, and still popular among the people

[libbrit]

• Does Charles still become King?

Yes, without question. Thats how monarchy works.

• Does Diana still become Queen? Does she even want to be Queen at this point?

He wishes are irrelevant. If she is still married, she is Queen Consort regardless of personal preference. As it stands at the moment, Camilla has said she wont be known as Queen but as Princess-Consort, when Charles becomes king. It is not really anything but a play on words. Legally, she is queen regardless of if she uses the title (also, public approval of Charles has risen markedly the last few years, so it wouldnt surprise me if they scrap that idea and crown her Queen with the minimum of fuss)

• Do they skip Charles because of the scandal and make William a 10 year old King?

Illegal, and also not the way British monarchy works. A divorce scandal is one of the lesser scandals the British monarchy has had, and it never brought the system down.

• Do the British throw out the monarchy altogether?

No chance.

• If Charles and Diana do divorce after Charles becomes King, does he still marry Camilla?

Depends on a few things. His willingness to force the thing through, the advice of the government of the day etc. Its all very well for him to make the decision he made when he wasnt king. But as king he is under many different obligations and pressures. If he pushed against the government and the Church enough, and insisted on marrying Camilla, he might be forced to abdicate, in which case the throne would pass to William, and i believe the Regency Act would put the Duke of Edinburgh as regent, or possible the oldest adult heir, which would be Prince Andrew. The regency would last i imagine until William is 18, which is 2001, at which point his Coronation, no doubt delayed during the Regency, would take place.

• If they still divorce does Diana still die in 1997?

Who can tell. Time will probably be butterflied so much that she probably wont even end up in Paris in August 97, so quite possibly not.

• What is the public's (British and worldwide) reaction to Charles becoming King at this point?

World reaction-frankly irrelevant. British reaction? Disapproval at the divorce? Maybe, but the British, even in the dark days of the 90s, were never anywhere close to favouring a republic, so they would get over it.

[Æsir]

Originally Posted by ColeMercury

That's illegal.

Is it though? My understanding was that British parliamentarism is such that the monarch now reigns more or less entirely at parliament's leisure.

[libbrit]

Originally Posted by Æsir

Is it though? My understanding was that British parliamentarism is such that the monarch now reigns more or less entirely at parliament's leisure.

Indeed, but the parliament regulates the succession by various laws that are laid down into statute and one of those laws (dont ask me which one), will state very clearly that the crown passes to the oldest male heir. Which is his son. Its a black and white principle of monarchial succession in 1993.

Of course if it happened now it wouldnt go straight to the oldest male as the male preference is being written out of law as soon as the other commonwealth realms can be co ordinated into passing similar law changes

[von hitchofen]

this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Act_1702

this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1800

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marriages_Act_1772

male preference primogeniture and NO CATHOLICS

[Atomo]

Originally Posted by CCK

[*]What is the public's (British and worldwide) reaction to Charles becoming King at this point?[/LIST]

I have a feeling the reaction in the Commonwealth countries, especially here in Canada, might not be too good. Not in any active way, but turnout for events will badly suffer and public comment on any cost related to events will be heated and negative.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Æsir

Is it though? My understanding was that British parliamentarism is such that the monarch now reigns more or less entirely at parliament's leisure.

As Libbrit said. There is also the fact that William was a boy of ten at the time and would probably not be crowned king until he’d reached his majority. As Zippy asked, who would they appoint as William’s regent if it wasn’t Charles? As William’s parental guardian, it would really have to be him anyway, so you either give Diana sole custody of William, or Charles is king in all but name anyway so you might as well name him king.

My thoughts are:

Does Charles still become King?

Yes, despite the scandal, the monarchy and Charles were still popular.

Does Diana still become Queen?

No.

Does she even want to be Queen at this point?

You bet she would have! The woman lived for attention. She’d have been ropable if a coronation was announced just months after they’d officially separated.

Do they skip Charles because of the scandal and make William a 10 year old King?

No, for the reasons already given.

Do the British throw out the monarchy altogether?

No, for the same reasons.

If Charles and Diana do divorce after Charles becomes King, does he still marry Camilla?

Probably. There’s no reason he couldn’t.

If they still divorce does Diana still die in 1997?

That depends on whether they choose to get into the back seat of a car driven by a man who had been drinking and who then speeds through a narrow tunnel*. Oh, and they don’t wear their seat belts; the only person to survive the crash was Trevor Reese Jones, who, since he was sitting in the front passenger seat, was statistically least likely to survive a crash, but who was wearing his seatbelt.**

What is the public's (British and worldwide) reaction to Charles becoming King at this point?

They’d probably tune in to watch the parade on TV and the spectacle of the Coronation in Saint Paul’s, but otherwise indifference.

*Silly answer option No1: No – MI5 would have had no reason to assassinate her if she was divorced from Charles and he was King.

Silly answer option No 2: Yes –MI5 have even more reason to…

**In 1997 the West Australian government was doing an advertising campaign to remind people to ‘belt up’ and asked for suggestions from the public. I suggested a big photo of Princess Diana with the caption ‘She’d still be alive if she’d belted up.’ But they didn’t like it – the pussies.

[V-J]

Originally Posted by Æsir

Is it though? My understanding was that British parliamentarism is such that the monarch now reigns more or less entirely at parliament's leisure.

To reiterate what's already been said, it's certainly illegal - the line of succession is clearly set out in law, and there's no provision whatsoever for skipping individuals in it, other than those who are barred from it by the terms of the Act of Settlement - and also ASB, not going to happen, etc etc. You would need a damn good, far-out reason for Parliament to consider interrupting the succession of a monarch, not 'he's not exactly flavour of the month'. Any idea of the succession skipping straight from the Queen to William is just pure Dianaite fantasy I'm afraid. It's illegal and it's unconstitutional and it's not going to happen. The only way it'll do that is if Charles predeceases the Queen.

Originally Posted by Cook

No.

And this is equally as wrong. Diana would immediately become Queen by simple virtue of being Charles' lawful spouse. (They did not divorce until 1996) No legal way to abort that.

[Magnum]

Originally Posted by libbrit

If he pushed against the government and the Church enough, and insisted on marrying Camilla, he might be forced to abdicate

What one earth could they possibly do to force him, besides intimidating him and trying to scare him of the "dangerous consequences" ?

[libbrit]

Originally Posted by Magnum

What one earth could they possibly do to force him, besides intimidating him and trying to scare him of the "dangerous consequences" ?

Before they even take actions to remove him from the throne, they can do whatever they want. They could suspend the civil list, which would immediately be a problem for him. Or they could declare him unfit to excercise his duties, setting up a regency?

They could literally do anything.

Ultimately, they would just depose him. The monarchy is utterly subservient to parliament. If the government so determined, they could declare him to have broken his coronation oath and as such, declare him to have vacated the throne-they did it in 1688, establishing the precedent and creating the monarchial subserviance to parliament that exists today.

Afterall, he is head of the Church of England, and at the time, the CofE was doctrinally opposed to divorcees marrying-still are infact.


Read the oath taken by the monarch at coronation

The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.......according to their respective laws and customs?"
The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
The Queen: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
The Queen: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

The monarch additionally swears an oath to preserve Presbyterian church government in the Church of Scotland. This part of the oath is taken before the coronation

If the supposed head of that church is publicly flouting the rules of that church, then he has breached his coronation oath. He is finished as monarch.

People dont realise how utterly subserviant the monarchy is to parliament. Every hour of the day, parliament metaphorically has its foot on the monarchs throat. The monarch has been deposed by parliament before, forced to abdicate before, even executed before, all by parliament.