Queen Elizabeth II killed in 1981

6 weeks before the marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana in 1981 the Queen Took part in trooping the colour, while riding a 17 year old took a shot at her, he missed and the Queen was applauded for her clam under fire, but what if she'd be hit and killed? would Charles still marry Diana? (the wedding would have likely been at lest put off so with more time to think and being King would he change his mind?) if he still marries her will their marriage go the way it did in OTL? (I think it will but would it become public?) what becomes of Prince Philip (does he get a "Queen Mother" like title, will he still be a public figure) will the Monarchy weather King Charles III ok?
 
He fired blanks, though I'm guessing republicans would suffer quite badly from being affiliated with him.
 
I was just 6 years old at that time but I can still remember that every few weeks there was a news story about some VIP being shot. First John Lennon, then Reagan, then the Pope and then this attack on the Queen. In addition I live in Northern Ireland and this was at the height of the Hunger Strikes and a very bloody period of time. Of course being that young I didn't understand why any of it was happening.
 
Last edited:
So assuming the bullets were real and the "assassin" was a good aim:

King George VII (Prince Charles) who was still very popular at the time (think Prince William today) would benefit from a huge surge of public sympathy. The wedding would have been delayed 6 months to a year for public mourning. Charles wouldn't change his mind. Everyone around him including Prince Phillip, the Queen Mother and especially the officers of the Royal Household would be on him to give the people something to cheer for.

Now how close does Diana get to know Charles during these months (the OTL wedding was almost "shootgun" fast) is the wildcard. I think even if she finds out everything she needs to know about Camilla and all that, there'd still be tremendous pressure on her not to back out. Pretty sure this wedding still takes place but if someone were to "tap-out" it would be Diana.

The Royal Household, now focused on their young King, would put a tighter reign on both him and Diana. His ability to consort with another man's wife not in his daily circle of people would be very restricted, if by nothing else then by the schedule of daily events the Monarch has to follow. I can't see anyone in the Royal Household letting Camilla get attached to Kings' retinue. Now will he find a lady in his new circle of folks to have an affair with? Highly likely if he doesn't find love with Diana, but that would be no where near as public. No way a sitting King of the United Kingdom has a public divorce, so Diana would have to be mollified in some other, private way.

Prince Phillip stays the Duke of Edinburgh. No "need" for another title. The interesting thing with Prince Phillip is does he take a new "girlfriend"? If he does she won't be a public figure at all, but how does that go down behind the scenes? Knowing about Charles' life the way we do now, hard to see him not letting his dad get on with life.
 
Last edited:
Your joke was too tangential blank I'm sorry to say.

"Shooting blanks" is sometimes a euphemism for being sterile (the man's semen are 'blanks,' in that they are incapable of fertilizing a woman's ovum). fastmongrel took the jocular position that The Red was referring to Charles, and not the 1981 assassin, as the one "shooting blanks" (in Charles' case, sterility. In the assassin's case, actually shooting blanks).

Thus fastmongrel, jokingly assuming that The Red was suggesting that Charles was sterile, commented that William has to be Charles' son (based on appearance, I assume), and therefore Charles is not, in OTL, "shooting blanks."
 
"Shooting blanks" is sometimes a euphemism for being sterile (the man's semen are 'blanks,' in that they are incapable of fertilizing a woman's ovum). fastmongrel took the jocular position that The Red was referring to Charles, and not the 1981 assassin, as the one "shooting blanks" (in Charles' case, sterility. In the assassin's case, actually shooting blanks).

Thus fastmongrel, jokingly assuming that The Red was suggesting that Charles was sterile, commented that William has to be Charles' son (based on appearance, I assume), and therefore Charles is not, in OTL, "shooting blanks."

I'm well aware of the joke and of what fastmongeral was saying. My point was that his childish joke was a silly remark that added nothing of value to add to the discussion of WI QE2 dies in June 1981. There are plenty of places where that joke would be spot-on. On this thread though, it was an unfunny and poorly delivered dud.


My apologies BA, for contributing to the derailment of this thread.
_______________________________________________________


It would be interesting to see Diana step directly into the role of Queen consort. I fear though, that she would be every bit as unhappy in TTL as she became in OTL. Perhaps the Duke of Edinburgh would step in to assist her. In private, could/would He speak to Charles "father to son" about learning to love Diana and forgetting Camilla? Could/would the Queen Mother (I presume that she wouldn't change that title)?
 
Cheer up Lord Grattan you didnt get an admittedly only moderately amusing joke no need to get grumpy about it. It wasnt even my joke:D
 
KING GEORGE VII ???????:eek:
Why??
King Charles III.

Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

Charles I had his head cut off by former members of Parliament
Charles II lived in exile for years before the Restoration
There's never been a King Philip of England or Scotland
King Arthur would be pretentious at best

Charles grandfather was Prince Albert (Bertie) but chose George VI
His great uncle was Prince David but chose Edward VIII
His great great grandfather was another Bertie but chose Edward VII
Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina and she was called Drina as a child.

Lots of precedent to chose another reigning name.
 
Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor

Charles I had his head cut off by former members of Parliament
Charles II lived in exile for years before the Restoration
There's never been a King Philip of England or Scotland
King Arthur would be pretentious at best

Charles grandfather was Prince Albert (Bertie) but chose George VI
His great uncle was Prince David but chose Edward VIII
His great great grandfather was another Bertie but chose Edward VII
Queen Victoria's first name was Alexandrina and she was called Drina as a child.

Lots of precedent to chose another reigning name.

Yes, George VII is more likely than Charles III. But we are in an era with a sentiment to heal old wounds.
 
I know it hasn't been a rumour IRL, but I kind of like the sound of Philip I...

Well, if he goes with Philip (or more likely, have a Philip at some point in the future), he'll probably be "Philip II."

The original Philip (Philip II of Spain) was Queen Mary I's consort, but he was officially "King of England" during her reign (jure uxoris) and held monarchical power unlike any other consort. So, arguably, Philip was "King Philip I of England and Ireland."

Supposedly, according to one thread here (but I can't find confirmation), Charles could only pick a name that's been used by a previous English or Scottish monarch. It doesn't make sense, but apparently it's some recent thing to do with upholding tradition. If it were true, then only these names are possible (post-Norman Conquest, highest numeral used when shared amongst Scottish and English royals):
* Edgar (II)
* John (II)
* Philip (II)
* Stephen (II)
* Charles (III)
* David (III)
* Duncan (III)
* Alexander (IV)
* Donald (IV)
* Richard (IV)
* Robert (IV)
* Malcolm (V)
* William (V)
* George (VII)
* James (VIII)
* Edward (IX)
* Henry (IX)
 
Well, if he goes with Philip (or more likely, have a Philip at some point in the future), he'll probably be "Philip II."

The original Philip (Philip II of Spain) was Queen Mary I's consort, but he was officially "King of England" during her reign (jure uxoris) and held monarchical power unlike any other consort. So, arguably, Philip was "King Philip I of England and Ireland."

Supposedly, according to one thread here (but I can't find confirmation), Charles could only pick a name that's been used by a previous English or Scottish monarch. It doesn't make sense, but apparently it's some recent thing to do with upholding tradition. If it were true, then only these names are possible (post-Norman Conquest, highest numeral used when shared amongst Scottish and English royals)

Not true really.

Technically since the Regnal Name and Regnal Number are Honours they come under the Royal Prerogative so Charles could have himself crowned King Potato XXXIV if he so decided.
Going by precedent and tradition however he can choose a name other than his first from among his baptismal names - so one of Charles Philip Arthur George.
Therefore the Regnal Name George seems most likely (for reasons given upthread) with the Regnal Number of VII to follow in sequence from George VI.

I'll also point out that taking a Regnal Name different to the baptismal name is not unique to the UK.
Emperor Charles IV was baptised Wenceslaus (Václav) but took his confirmation name Charles.
 
Last edited:
Top