AH Challenge: Charles marries Camilla, not Di, succeeds QE II

Let's imagine that somehow Prince Charles is able to marry the girl of his dreams, Camilla Shand, on the first go round and the marriage is a happy one, so Charles avoids the whole disappointment with Di thing. When does QE II step down? How does Charles do as Grand Poobah, I mean King of England, etc? Bonus points: would Camilla-Charles offspring be more clever than the current crop of Charles-Di offspring, who appear to be none too bright?
 
Bonus points: would Camilla-Charles offspring be more clever than the current crop of Charles-Di offspring, who appear to be none too bright?


Honest question. While the younger son's reputation precedes him, I haven't heard much about the oldest in regard to inabilities or ineptitude.
Can you fill me in?
 
When does Queen Elizabeth "step down"? She does so when her eyelids close in death and not a moment before.

Agreed. Her Majesty will NEVER abdicate. Doing so would mean shirking what she views as her duty to the her people, her ancestors, and Almighty God. Unlike the Benelux countries there is no precedent for a British monarch to "retire". Abdication is a profoundy unusual thing resulting from constitutional crisises of the worst nature. She could well live to be over a 100 years old. And even if she does decline into senility all that will happen is Parliament appointing Charles as Prince Regent (just like what happened to George III). There's no way he becomes Charles III (or George VII) as long as his mother is alive.
 
Agreed. Her Majesty will NEVER abdicate. Doing so would mean shirking what she views as her duty to the her people, her ancestors, and Almighty God. Unlike the Benelux countries there is no precedent for a British monarch to "retire". Abdication is a profoundy unusual thing resulting from constitutional crisises of the worst nature. She could well live to be over a 100 years old. And even if she does decline into senility all that will happen is Parliament appointing Charles as Prince Regent (just like what happened to George III). There's no way he becomes Charles III (or George VII) as long as his mother is alive.

Why would Charles become George VII? I thought that the British monarchs use their given names as regal names (unlike Popes). I think a constitutional crisis over the monarchy would be good. I'm a republican, so any chance to ditch monarchies is a good one.

It's highly likely that Australia will declare itself a republic at the end of QE II's reign. Canada might follow suit, but I don't see the same level of republican sentiment here. Seems that most anglophone Canadians are apathetic about the monarchy. Quebec, on the other hand, would love a Canadian republic.
 

MrP

Banned
Charles has let it be known he plans to be crowned George VII. For some reason he feels that King Charles just has bad connotations. I've no idea what he's on about. ;)

However, most people will still think of him as Charles, since that's the name he's gone by for decades.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that George is his given name. In keeping with the finest traditions of the very rich and the very poor, he has about five. Wiki'll have the full list, unless it's been vandalised. If it says his full name is Charles Edward Philip Pokemon George Conan Aloysius Superman Incredible Hulk Windsor, then check other sources.
 
Why would Charles become George VII? I thought that the British monarchs use their given names as regal names (unlike Popes). I think a constitutional crisis over the monarchy would be good. I'm a republican, so any chance to ditch monarchies is a good one.

Like Popes, British monarchs choose their Regnal names upon their succession, Elizabeth II and many of her predecesors chose to use their birth names but this isn't set. the reason most people expect Charles to be known as George VII is because of the following:

There have only ever been 2 Charles's before. One got his head chopped off and one left an insippient constitutional crisis. Not a good precedent.

George's on the other hand, especially the recent Georges have a far better reputation

George is one of his middle names

As for why he wouldn't go by one of his other 2 middle names (Philip and Arthur), well there's never been a King Philip before which is kind of a disadvantage and going for King Arthur II would be a little pretentious even for the British monarchy
 

Hashasheen

Banned
As for why he wouldn't go by one of his other 2 middle names (Philip and Arthur), well there's never been a King Philip before which is kind of a disadvantage and going for King Arthur II would be a little pretentious even for the British monarchy
I wish he'd go with Arthur. Be rather amusing.
 
Like Popes, British monarchs choose their Regnal names upon their succession, Elizabeth II and many of her predecesors chose to use their birth names but this isn't set. the reason most people expect Charles to be known as George VII is because of the following:

There have only ever been 2 Charles's before. One got his head chopped off and one left an insippient constitutional crisis. Not a good precedent.

George's on the other hand, especially the recent Georges have a far better reputation

George is one of his middle names

As for why he wouldn't go by one of his other 2 middle names (Philip and Arthur), well there's never been a King Philip before which is kind of a disadvantage and going for King Arthur II would be a little pretentious even for the British monarchy

Indeed.
I think there are 3 precedents as well:
Queen Victoria - born Alexandrina Victoria
King Edward VII - Albert Edward - and did Victoria really want him to be King Albert-Edward?
King George VI - Albert Frederick Arthur George
 
Charles has let it be known he plans to be crowned George VII. For some reason he feels that King Charles just has bad connotations. I've no idea what he's on about. ;)

However, most people will still think of him as Charles, since that's the name he's gone by for decades.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that George is his given name. In keeping with the finest traditions of the very rich and the very poor, he has about five. Wiki'll have the full list, unless it's been vandalised. If it says his full name is Charles Edward Philip Pokemon George Conan Aloysius Superman Incredible Hulk Windsor, then check other sources.

Just don't check the recording of the wedding as Di got the list wrong.

WI in the ATL Camilla also gets the names wrong. Charles and Camilla were fans of the Goon Show and used to call each other Fred and Gladys. So under the pressure of the events she gets the name wrong and slips into Goonspeak: "... Take thee, Charles Arthur Philip Gladys Neddie Ying-Tong-Iddle-Eye-Po ..."

Cheers,
Nigel.
 

MrP

Banned
Just don't check the recording of the wedding as Di got the list wrong.
I'd forgotten that! :D
WI in the ATL Camilla also gets the names wrong. Charles and Camilla were fans of the Goon Show and used to call each other Fred and Gladys. So under the pressure of the events she gets the name wrong and slips into Goonspeak: "... Take thee, Charles Arthur Philip Gladys Neddie Ying-Tong-Iddle-Eye-Po ..."

Cheers,
Nigel.
Sir, that's the best mental image-cum-sound of the day! :D
 
I personally think Charles III would be a perfectly apt styling for the Prince of Wales if he succeeds to the throne :p (I say if because I honestly think Her Majesty will hold off on dying until Charles does so that William directly succeeds her).
 
It's highly likely that Australia will declare itself a republic at the end of QE II's reign.
Yep. :)

The thing is, though, even though I'm opposed to the Australian monarchy on principle, I actually don't mind Prince Charles himself that much. He seems like a pleasant guy, and he's an environmentalist too -- and as for the whole Diana-Camilla thing, I see both him and Diana as victims of the bloody stupid royal system and I'm glad that he's at last married to the woman he wanted to marry in the first place. But on the other hand, Australia's monarchist minority are by and large the sort of people who hate his philandering guts, so when the opportunity is there I say we should take it.
 
We have consensus that Charles having a more stable (though I was not told to use the word "stable" in any manner describing Camilla, as volks might think assume it was a evil pun about her) relationship would not speed the process of his assuming the throne?
 
That entirely depends on a) who is Prime Minister and b) what replacement model is offered.

I always thought that something like the Indian system (on a _much_ smaller scale) would be the way Australians would go when parting with the Commonwealth Realms. Presidential-parliamentarian, with prime minister and parliament as head of government. The president would hold some reserve powers decided on by the Australian people at the time the government proposes separation from the Crown. A popular election of the president would be integral to such a system.

I don't see Australia ditching a parliamentary system. Why the heck would Australia try the US Federal system, for example, seeing how much grief it causes Americans?:eek:
 
It's highly likely that Australia will declare itself a republic at the end of QE II's reign.

Sufferin' Sappho yes, and past time, too!

Canada might follow suit, but I don't see the same level of republican sentiment here. Seems that most anglophone Canadians are apathetic about the monarchy. Quebec, on the other hand, would love a Canadian republic.

The Canadian consensus, at least according to those few I have spoken to, seems to be a resounding 'meh' though of course that could change by the time Liz passes on. Can't see Quebec making a break for the door, though who knows - I'm not as up on my internal Canadian politics as I'd like to be.

There have only ever been 2 Charles's before. One got his head chopped off and one left an insippient constitutional crisis. Not a good precedent.

See now if it were me, I'd look at the name's bad reputation as a challenge. :D
 
The Canadian consensus, at least according to those few I have spoken to, seems to be a resounding 'meh' though of course that could change by the time Liz passes on. Can't see Quebec making a break for the door, though who knows - I'm not as up on my internal Canadian politics as I'd like to be.
As someone pointed out in Maclean's, Canada is highly unlikely to go Republic - it would mean changing the Constitution, which is essentially impossible these days!:)
 
As someone pointed out in Maclean's, Canada is highly unlikely to go Republic - it would mean changing the Constitution, which is essentially impossible these days!:)

I'm skeptical about that statement. The Charter was introduced less than thirty years ago -- a major change with a decade or more of deliberation. Still, the Canada Act demonstrates that Canada could make large-scale changes during patriation. Separation from the Commonwealth Realms might take quite a bit of parliamentary wrangling and may not happen at the same time as QE II's death. Still, even though I am not a Canadian constitutional scholar, I don't see how difficult it would be to replace the governor-general with an elected president. The GG office is already in place. All that is is needed is deletion of references to the Crown and GG. An apparatus for direct election of a president would follow.

I am certain that Crown prosecution could be remoulded under a different set of terms. Again, the judicial setup works. It's just a matter of expunging references to the Crown and replacing titles with republican models.

Aside note: maybe Canada should hold off on exiting the Crown. I can't wait to see the Charles III/George VII coins. I wonder if proofs have already been made in Britain or in the Realms.
 
I don't much anticipate the thought of an elected President. (President Chretien anyone?) Since a HoS would be elected by Parliament, then it would be an appointment of the Prime Minister, which is how a GG is appointed.
 
Top